Forum
Who’s Who in the Sublimelight:
“Suave John Ray” and Lolita’s “Secret Points”
George Ferger
(Williamstown, Massachusetts)
Always mindful of Nabokov’s advice that in reading “one should notice and
fondle details” (LL 1), upon re-reading Lolita
1
recently my eye fell on a detail
on the first page of John Ray’s Foreword: the name of Humbert’s lawyer,
Clarence Choate Clark, Esq. With the middle name and a few superfluous
letters removed, there, embedded in the name of Ray’s “eminent cousin” was
Clare, Clare Q., another double name for “quilted Quilty, Clare Obscure,”
and I began to consider the possible implications of Cue incarnate in Clark.
2
While the correspondence can hardly be mere coincidence in a book by Na-
bokov, the concord between Clare Obscure and Clark, Esquire, suggesting an
identification between the two, defies both logic and commonsense. After all,
Quilty is supposedly dead when Ray writes his Foreword. The clue could well
be a booby-trap, a false scent for Kinbotean imaginations to seize upon only to
be drawn into a cave of baroque fantasy. As Proffer was among the first to
point out, “one should always be suspicious” of Nabokov (4). On the other
hand, in “The Art of Literature and Commonsense” Nabokov insists on the
supreme value of the detail over the general and asserts that it is through our
“capacity to wonder at trifles” in a “childishly speculative frame of mind, so
different from commonsense and its logic, that we know the world to be good”
1. All parenthetical page references to Lolita in appearing in the text and
notes of this essay are to Appel’s The Annotated Lolita. Unless otherwise noted,
or in the case of proper nouns such as titles and the names of newspapers, bold
letters and/or italics appearing in English words quoted from Nabokov’s work
mark my emphasis.
2. James McDonald, one of the few critics to give Ray serious attention,
noted Quilty’s embedded name some thirty years ago, but did not pursue its
ramifications (357).
138
Forum
(LL 374). Recalling that after the shooting Humbert ponders the possibility
some “surgeon of genius” might revive Quilty, I found it impossible not to
follow, in a spirit of serious play, the threads connecting the “trifle” of Clark’s
name to other details.
I
The question of how to read Lolita continues to provoke lively debate, the
focus of which has shifted from early concerns over its erotic elements to issues
of Humbert’s sincerity to speculation about how much of his story Humbert
Humbert, whoever he may be, experiences, records, and imagines.
3
In 1995
Alexander Dolinin and Julian W. Connolly, building on the arguments of
critics spanning almost two decades, brought to a head the premise that
Humbert Humbert “imagined” the final scenes of the book.
4
The basis for this
premise arises from a chronological inconsistency in Lolita: Humbert says on
the novel’s penultimate page that he began his memoir “fifty-six days ago […]
in the psychopathic ward” (presumably immediately following his arrest), but
if one counts back fifty-six days from the date of Humbert’s death, November
16, 1952, as given by John Ray in the Foreword, one arrives at September 22,
1952, the day Humbert receives Lolita’s letter in Part II’s Chapter 27. Since this
fifty-six day period leaves no time for the three days Humbert spends traveling
to Coalmont to see Lolita, stalking Quilty and shooting him at Pavor Manor,
and getting arrested, the final scenes of the book, Dolinin and Connolly argue,
must be products of Humbert’s fancy.
5
To credit this startling thesis is to
acknowledge the need for a major reinterpretation of Lolita. Brian Boyd
counters the arguments of these “revisionist” critics, decrying what he sees as
their lack of concrete evidence, and putting forward the passionately argued
proposal that changing the date of Humbert’s death in the Foreword from the
3. For a compact discussion of critical interpretations of Lolita, see Neil
Cornwell’s chapter “The Lolita Phenomenon” in his Vladimir Nabokov.
4. Dolinin, “Nabokov’s Time Doubling”; Connolly, “‘Nature’s Reality’ or
Humbert’s ‘Fancy’.”
5. Dolinin outlines the chronology of the main events of Lolita’s endgame
as follows: September 22: Humbert receives letters from John Farlow and
Lolita (now Mrs. Richard F. Schiller), and sets out on his journey; September
23: H.H. meets with Lolita in Coalmont; September 24: he visits Ramsdale
and goes on to Parkington; September 25: he kills Clare Quilty and surrenders
to the police, and on this day or soon afterwards is sent for evaluation to the
psychiatric ward, where he starts writing Lolita; November 16: H.H., now in
prison, completes his manuscript and dies of coronary thrombosis (“Nabo-
kov’s Time Doubling” 30).
Who’s Who in the Sublimelight
139
16th to the 19th of November would resolve the problem, supposing Nabokov
to have made a simple mistake.
6
Boyd seems to have had the last word thus far, but there are problems with
his proposed solution. I think Boyd is right to stress that Ray’s Foreword estab-
lishes key points of reference, and I think he is right that the scenes in question
are not merely products of Humbert’s fancy, but altering the date as he does
risks dangers equal in magnitude to the ones against which he warns the
“revisers.”
7
It is hardly surprising that so much is at stake in a single digit, con-
sidering how much value Nabokov placed on minute particulars,
8
and while
exploring an alternative solution, I will provide detailed evidence from the text
that supports at least part of the revisionist view: that Nabokov deliberately
created the discrepancy in the dates as a gesture toward a solution of the riddle
of Lolita. For beneath the triangular plot of the Humbert-Lolita-Quilty story
there is evidence of a bizarre, covert conspiracy whose features are consistent
with Nabokov’s notions of chess strategy as he characterizes them in Speak,
Memory: “Deceit, to the point of diabolism, and originality, verging on the
grotesque.”
9
I would like to entertain the following possibility: the principal narrator of
the concluding chapters of Lolita (and of other parts of it, too) may well be
John Ray, Jr.
10
Boyd identifies common elements crucial to both the novel and
6. “‘Even Homais Nods’: Nabokov’s Fallibility, Or, How to Revise Lolita.”
7. “[E]ven Homer nods,” Boyd says, “and so does Nabokov, and to build
wholesale interpretations on details that seem much more explicable as errors
is fraught with danger” (“Homais” 64).
8. Boyd himself reminds us of Nabokov’s cautionary remarks “in discuss-
ing the editing of Eugene Onegin: ‘Even obvious misprints should be treated
gingerly, after all, they may be supposed to have been left uncorrected by
the author’” (“Homais” 64). It is worth reiterating, as Dolinin does, that
Nabokov’s revisions to his Russian translation of Lolita made “the key date—
September 22, 1952— […] even more strongly marked” than in the American
version (“Nabokov’s Time Doubling” 31). Dolinin makes the same point
elsewhere after reminding us that Nabokov authorized Alfred Appel, Jr., when
“working on The Annotated Lolita,” “to make corresponding corrections in the
original” (“Lolita in Russian” 327).
9. Quoted by Alexandrov (38). See also note 71 below.
10. Connolly approaches this position when he suggests that in Lolita Na-
bokov may be using “a version of the strategy that some readers have identified
in Pale Fire and The Real Life of Sebastian Knight. In each of these novels, one
finds suggestive evidence indicating that a single consciousness lies behind
the figure of a writer” (44). I view Ray as an agent who has appropriated and
140
Forum
Nabokov’s Lolita: A Screenplay: “Quilty’s shadowy presence,” “the Edgar Allan
Poe allusions,” and “John Ray, Jr.’s position as frame to and external
commentator on Humbert’s confession. Dr. Ray [in the screenplay] becomes
the sometimes comically obtrusive narrator of the whole film” (“Homais”
77–78). If Ray is “comically obtrusive” in the screenplay,
11
he may be seen as
hilariously, outrageously so in the novel, all the while operating in diabolically
effective camouflage. As I hope to show, Nabokov not only makes Ray
responsible for such phenomena as Humbert’s confused calendar and the
curious disguise of Quilty in Clarence Clark, but also for contriving Humbert’s
“moral apotheosis” and making him repeatedly look and sound foolish.
Taking over another’s story is of course a familiar plot element in Nabokov’s
novels, Pnin and Pale Fire being two of the most prominent examples.
In rejecting the revisionist thesis, Boyd asserts that Humbert’s unrelenting
vanity would not permit him to depict himself as the insignificant lover Dolly
sees at Coalmont or as the fool he appears “as Quilty coolly mocks him” at
Pavor Manor (“Homais” 81), but Humbert’s bumbling, incompetence, and
blindness are apparent throughout the novel. For example, even before Quilty
is in need of resurrection, there is ample preparation in Lolita for the possi-
bility that Humbert may never succeed as a killer. Despite his claim that he
could see himself shooting Valeria’s lover, Humbert is too squeamish to kill
Charlotte when the actual occasion arises (“I could not kill Charlotte” [87];
“Poets never kill” [88]). His ineffectuality with a gun is foreshadowed in his
dreams where his bullets fail (47) and is demonstrated in his poor marks-
manship when hunting with Farlow and Krestovski (216). His incompetence
radically altered Humbert’s account for his own ends, toying with H.H. in the
process. See also note 20 below.
11. Ray’s role in the screenplay is very active indeed. Not only does he
repeat much of what he says in the novel’s Foreword, he gets involved in the
narration of the story’s events, interrupts Humbert’s voice, and even cues
Humbert’s lines at times (see 8–15, passim). After showing Ray “perusing a
manuscript on his desk” (2), H.H. in a voiceover announces his intention “to
place these pages [of his finished story] in the capable hands of my adviser and
physician, Dr. John Ray” (8). This announcement is rather strikingly out of
keeping with the antipathy he expresses toward Ray while he is under treat-
ment (see note 14 below), a contradiction that suggests Ray may be putting
words in Humbert’s mouth in the voiceover. Granted that the novel and the
screenplay are different works in different media, choices Nabokov made for
the screen version of the story preserve Ray’s glib suavity and his proprietary
stance toward Humbert’s life. Holding the typescript of Humbert’s story, Ray
exults, “And here they are, those precious pages” (8).
Who’s Who in the Sublimelight
141
as assassin is further foreshadowed the night before he confronts Quilty, when
he glimpses a movie screen on which “a thin phantom raised a gun, both he
and his arm reduced to tremulous dishwater,” and in his subsequent obsession
with “bungling the execution” (293). Bathing little Chum excessively in “the
wrong product” (295) and showing up drunk at Pavor Manor hardly help. His
fogged perception (“I may have lost contact with reality for a second or two”),
his reliance on appearance alone in judging Quilty’s state (“I could not bring
myself to touch him in order to make sure that he was really dead” [304]),
the nonchalance and facetiousness with which Quilty’s friends respond to
Humbert’s announcement that he has killed Quilty, and Quilty’s crawling out
to the landing after H.H. leaves him for dead all cast doubt on Humbert’s
claim to have finally accomplished the revenge he so passionately desired.
Telling himself that Quilty’s ingenious play is over, heart-heavy Humbert
leaves, and as he drives slowly away he tells us he
wondered idly if some surgeon of genius might not alter his own career,
and perhaps the whole destiny of mankind, by reviving quilted Quilty,
Clare Obscure. Not that I cared; on the whole I wished to forget the
whole mess—and when I did learn that he was dead, the only satisfaction
it gave me, was the relief of knowing I need not mentally accompany for
months a painful and disgusting convalescence interrupted with all kinds
of unmentionable operations and relapses, and perhaps an actual visit
from him, with trouble on my part to rationalize him as not being a
ghost. Thomas had something. It is strange that the tactile sense, which is
so infinitely less precious to men than sight, becomes at critical moments
our main, if not only, handle to reality.
12
I was all covered with
Quilty—with the feel of that tumble before the bleeding. (306)
I wonder if Humbert’s seemingly idle worries are actually symptoms of defeat
and failure; he may be “all covered with Quilty” in ways he never contemplates
and in senses that go deeper than the oft remarked affinities linking him with
what some call his double, his shadow and “evil twin.”
I will take as a starting point the supposition that the correspondence be-
tween Clare Obscure and Clark, Esquire is not a false clue and that Nabokov
has Ray, the “surgeon of genius,” resurrect Quilty as Humbert’s lawyer,
Clarence Choate Clark, Esq., so that under the terms of Humbert’s will Clark
12. Nabokov echoes Humbert in a 1966 interview with Appel: “Doubting
Tom should have worn spectacles. It is true, however, that even with the
best of visions one must touch things to be quite sure of ‘reality’” (SO 79;
Nabokov’s italics). Another reminder that one should “fondle details.”
142
Forum
may exercise “his discretion in all matters pertaining to the preparation of
‘Lolita’ for print” (3). Enhancing his career by attaching his name as editor to
“a great work of art” destined to become “a classic in psychiatric circles” is an
aim entirely consistent with Ray’s interest in “bringing up a better generation
in a safer world,” as he says at the end of the Foreword, stating this ambition in
language strikingly similar to Humbert’s sarcastically hyperbolic suggestion
that “the whole destiny of mankind” might be affected by Quilty’s revival. At
the same time, in a novel filled with parodic allusions to Poe, Nabokov may be
dangling a clue reminiscent of the eponymous purloined letter under the nose
of his readers, a clue boldly and prominently displayed at the very beginning of
the book, so obvious it defies detection. The legal power Clark wields over
Humbert’s memoir could thus be seen as an extension of the uncanny power
and influence Quilty exerts on Humbert in the novel,
13
while Ray himself acts
as accomplice to “Vivian Darkbloom” by performing the services of a proto-
Kinbotean intermediary for Nabokov. Ray affords Quilty advantages over
Humbert that make the latter ridiculous not only in the book’s final scenes,
but throughout the novel, and his editor’s role allows him to assume control of
H.H.’s manuscript, revise his story, and act as a principal agent of fate in it.
Ray’s surgery not only revives Quilty; his primary patient is Humbert, on
whom he repeatedly operates.
14
If this scenario is correct, Nabokov ironically
establishes Ray’s relationship to Humbert as analogous to that of the two
13. It should also be noted that Quilty’s power is related to chronological
discrepancies. As noted by Boyd, The Enchanted Hunters is anachronistic in the
sense that Quilty writes it before he could logically know of the events that
transpired in Room 342 of the Hotel, and similar incongruity marks a number
of clues Quilty plants for Humbert to follow in the “paper chase.” Boyd
registers not only H.H.’s frustration but a reader’s perplexity: “The play seems
almost to suggest some strange control over the future on Quilty’s part, yet
logic screams out that that is impossible” (American Years 247). And again:
“Something disconcerting and sinister is afoot: it seems almost as if Quilty has
Humbert completely in control, as if Humbert were no more than a character
in one of Quilty’s plays, a figment of his imagination” (247–48).
14. Again, the screenplay sheds intriguing light on Nabokov’s conception of
the Ray/Humbert/Quilty relationship. As to the resurrection motif, Nabokov
directs that in the struggle at Elphinstone Hospital a “mummylike patient”
(186) is to rise “like Lazarus” and assist in the subduing of Humbert. The next
cut is to Dr. Ray reporting on his treatment of H.H. in a sanatorium: “the
patient […] insulted the therapist by calling him ‘the rapist of Psyche the
soul’” (187). Nevertheless, Ray implies, his treatment succeeded sufficiently for
Humbert to check out and return to Beardsley where he resumes his search for
Lolita and Quilty (188). See note 11 above.
Who’s Who in the Sublimelight
143
central characters: Humbert’s abduction and exploitation of Lolita, whose life
he steals, is mirrored by Ray’s appropriation and violation of Humbert’s life,
voice, and mind. This equation would be consistent with Nabokov’s tantaliz-
ing declaration in a 1964 interview: “I shall never regret Lolita. She was like the
composition of a beautiful puzzle—its composition and its solution at the
same time, since one is a mirror view of the other, depending on the way you
look” (SO 20).
Even without Nabokov’s teasing hints proffered in interviews, the verbal
playfulness of Lolita itself invites us to join in the game of looking, as witness,
for instance, such anagrams as “Vivian Darkbloom” in the Foreword and “Ted
Hunter, Cane NH”
15
in the “paper chase.” And speaking of looking, which is
something Nabokov has Humbert continually do throughout the book in
comments referring to matters of perception (e.g., “It is a question of focal
adjustment, of a certain distance that the inner eye thrills to surmount, and a
certain contrast that the mind perceives with a gasp of perverse delight” [17]),
let us look at that devil “Aubrey McFate.” Humbert himself unwittingly dubs
the forces of his destiny “Aubrey McFate” (56), never guessing the name itself
is an anagram composed of references to four key players. At the end of
Chapter 23, following Charlotte’s fatal accident, Humbert has a meeting with
Beale, whom he ecstatically identifies:
I had actually seen the agent of fate. I had palpated the very flesh of
fate—and its padded shoulder. A brilliant and monstrous mutation had
suddenly taken place, and here was the instrument. Within the intricacies
of the pattern […] I could dimly distinguish my own vile contribution.
Had I not been such a fool—or such an intuitive genius—to preserve that
journal, fluids produced by vindictive anger and hot shame would not
have blinded Charlotte in her dash to the mailbox. But even had they
blinded her, still nothing might have happened, had not precise fate, that
synchronizing phantom, mixed within its alembic the car and the dog
and the sun and the shade and the wet and the weak and the strong and
the stone. Adieu, Marlene! Fat fate’s formal handshake (as reproduced by
Beale before leaving the room) brought me out of my torpor; and I wept.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury—I wept. (103)
Beale’s role is brief but crucial, as he furthers Humbert’s project by running
over Charlotte. But in the passage quoted above, Humbert is blissfully
unaware of greater forces shaping his destiny. Beale is only a momentary
partner of these greater forces, his initial “B” combining with “Ray,” “Cue,”
15. As noted by Appel (323; 428).
144
Forum
and “fat me” to form the anagram “Aubrey McFate.”
16
The auto-referential
epithet “fat me,” reminiscent of phrases like “fat Haze,” “bad you,” “poor me,”
and “Fat fate,” is a fitting one for Nabokov’s perverse fictional persona, for just
as John Farlow “stopped smoking and gained thirty pounds” (266), the author
too, not long before he began working on Lolita, quit tobacco and rapidly
put on weight as he compulsively gobbled candy.
17
But interpretation of “an
artist’s book” should not rest on biographical detail; it is by looking closely
“[w]ithin the intricacies of the pattern” that the reader can find evidence of the
McFate cabal’s conspiracy against Humbert, a conspiracy that Humbert with
imperfect comprehension is repeatedly made to refer: “I greatly liked […] her
trick of sighing ‘oh dear!’ in humorous wistful submission to fate, or emitting
a long ‘no-o’ in a deep almost growling undertone when the blow of fate had
actually fallen” (187–88); “In my youth I once read a French detective tale
where the clues were actually in italics; but that is not McFate’s way—even if
one does learn to recognize certain obscure indications” (211); “I ascertained
that Lo was still sound asleep (mouth open, in a kind of dull amazement at the
curiously inane life we all had rigged up for her)” (215); “all were in the plot, the
sordid plot” (243); “I felt suffocated as he rolled over me. I rolled over him. We
rolled over me. They rolled over him. We rolled over us” (299).
Throughout the long, lively debate concerning how to read Lolita, on one
point critics seem generally to agree: Editor John Ray—so apparently the
epitome of Nabokovian antipathies—is not to be taken seriously.
18
But Ray’s
16. Beale’s full surname hides in that of the original Aubrey: BEArdsLEy, a
cryptogram I term a shadowgraph (discussed later in this essay).
17. Sometime after September 27, 1945, Nabokov wrote to Edmund Wil-
son: “I have given up smoking and have grown tremendously fat” (Karlinsky
173). Boyd notes: “Intermediate students who had had their last elementary
class with a gaunt Mr. Nabokov in May were bewildered to encounter a far
plumper Mr. Nabokov in September, but the mystery resolved itself when
instead of his cigarettes Nabokov ‘shamelessly inhaled’ molasses candy cubes
in front of his class, five or six in the course of the hour” (American Years 88).
Stacy Schiff records that Nabokov’s 124-pound émigré’s weight soon soared to
over 200 and quotes disapproving Vera: “Volodya is always bumping into the
furniture because he cannot remember his new dimensions. He claims that
‘his belly is all in bruises’” (138). In addition to the auto-referential “fat me” in
the “Aubrey McFate” anagram, I further speculate that the ponderous author
marks his presence in the text with a number of cameos, such as “fat, pow-
dered Mrs. Leigh (born Vanessa van Ness)” (12), “an obese partly clad man
reading the paper” (264), and “a fat man in an easy chair” (304) among others.
18. Michael Wood, who sees Ray “as a figure of fun […] an obtuse and self-
Who’s Who in the Sublimelight
145
all too apparent faults have as part of their function effective camouflage that
masks his larger role in the novel.
19
Vain, self-regarding, didactic, and of the
tribe of Freud, Ray seems so obviously ludicrous that readers readily dismiss
his obtuse observations and pompous rhetoric, hastening on to the Byzantine
beauties of Humbert’s “fancy prose style.” Though commentators as early as
Proffer have noted similarities between the styles of Humbert and Ray, the
implication being that Ray may be Humbert’s invention, an alternate possibil-
ity—that Ray may have insinuated his own words into Humbert’s memoirs—
seems not to have been seriously explored.
20
Perhaps not coincidentally, in the
admiring psychologist,” offers a typical view (106).
19. Boyd recalls “how fascinated [Nabokov] was by deception in nature,
especially in mimicry, and how much he liked to find in his art equivalents for
the sly playfulness he sensed behind things. He even wrote that ‘in art, as in
nature, a glaring disadvantage may turn out to be a subtle protective device’”
(“Homais” 64).
20. Proffer describes Humbert’s voice as “the product of a deft ventrilo-
quistic trick, with [Nabokov’s] modified voice still quite recognizable. In fact
[…] the style of Humbert Humbert strongly resembles the style of John Ray,
Jr.” (82). Richard H. Bullock accounts for the similarities between the styles of
Ray and Humbert by supposing Ray to be a character invented by Humbert,
and concludes that “Humbert, then, like Nabokov, sits like God, paring his
fingernails, leaving only obscure clippings to indicate his presence” (101).
Martin Green takes a rather similar view: “Whoever writes the foreword,
signed John Ray, Jr., Ph.D., is obviously the same person who signs himself
Humbert Humbert. We recognize the same flow of overelegant language,
always shifting (swelling absurdly, halting abruptly, changing its brand of
elegance) in response to an acute sense of (taste in) its own glossy falsity […].
This is the main voice of the novel, whatever it may sign itself, and to realize
that this trick is being played on him arouses all a reader’s distrust—of a
gamesmanship kind.” Then Green adds: “But John Ray we can forget” (17).
Pekka Tammi, while noting authorial affinities with some of the language of
Ray’s Foreword, sees the “fictive prefacer” as “of course a patently absurd
figure,” but significantly adds in a note that as to “the alternation between
parody and seriousness in the Foreword to Lolita,” “the narratological im-
plications of the question have not been discussed” (298–99). Citing Bullock,
Connolly looks askance at the Foreword, “consider[s] the possibility that
John Ray, Jr. himself may be a kind of fabrication,” suggests that a “single
consciousness” may be at work in Lolita, and opines that “the figure who
previously had used the name Humbert Humbert” “stag[es] his own death
and don[s] the new identity of John Ray, Jr.” Recalling in a note that Elizabeth
Bruss notices that “the word ‘Ray’ (short for ‘hurray’) is uttered by Dolly when
she interrupts Humbert’s discourse on the concept of a mental triumph over
146
Forum
opening sentences of his afterword to the novel, “On a Book Entitled Lolita”
(311–17), Nabokov himself, in playfully convoluted fashion, comments on the
difficulty of straight talk:
After doing my impersonation of suave John Ray, the character in Lolita
who pens the Foreword, any comments coming straight from me may
strike one—may strike me, in fact—as an impersonation of Vladimir
Nabokov talking about his own book. A few points, however, have to be
discussed; and the autobiographic device may induce mimic and model
to blend. (311)
When Nabokov remarks a little farther on that he is “neither a reader nor a
writer of didactic fiction, and, despite John Ray’s assertion, Lolita has no
moral in tow” (314), there is no reason to doubt him. Numerous critics have
distinguished the explicit didacticism that Nabokov disavows (“I have no
social purpose, no moral message; I’ve no general ideas to exploit, I just like
composing riddles with elegant solutions” [SO 16]) from the ethical questions
Lolita implicitly raises.
21
It is “aesthetic bliss” (314) Nabokov says he is after, even if ethical concerns
have made a major claim on the attention of readers and author alike from
the beginning. Nabokov makes aesthetic bliss—“a sense of being somehow,
somewhere, connected to other states of being where art (curiosity, tenderness,
kindness, ecstasy) is the norm”—available to his favorite characters and to his
readers by
a characteristic formal feature of his narratives, in which details that are
in fact connected are hidden within contexts that conceal the true rela-
tions within them. This narrative tactic puts the burden on the reader
either to accumulate the components of a given series, or to discover the
one detail that acts as a “key” for it; when this is achieved, the signi-
death,” Connolly remarks that it “may be only a coincidence” (44–45). Bruss
reads Dolly’s ‘Ray’ as “a curious foreshadowing of editor John Ray’s death
notice” (142). See note 10 above.
21. Again, Wood’s comment is representative: “[Lolita] has no moral John
Ray would recognize, or that any of us could comfortably package. Humbert
moralizes, we might say, Nabokov doesn’t. But this is a book about a guilt that
both glorifies itself and grovels in self-accusation, and can therefore scarcely
avoid raising moral questions in the reader’s mind—even if the once and still
scandalous premise of the story didn’t raise such questions. No simple lesson,
then, and certainly no general lesson; but plenty of practice for the moral
imagination, more than we can cope with, perhaps” (107).
Who’s Who in the Sublimelight
147
ficance of the entire preceding concealed chain or network is retro-
actively illuminated. (Alexandrov 7)
My reconsideration of John Ray’s relationship to the rest of the novel has been
prompted in part by anomalies in the text which, when scrutinized, reveal
their hidden relationships. In addition, I take seriously the guidance Nabokov
offers near the end of his afterword:
Every serious writer, I dare say, is aware of this or that published book of
his as of a constant comforting presence. Its pilot light is steadily burning
somewhere in the basement and a mere touch applied to one’s private
thermostat instantly results in a quiet little explosion of familiar warmth.
This presence, this glow of the book in an ever accessible remoteness is a
most companionable feeling, and the better the book has conformed to
its prefigured contour and color the ampler and smoother it glows. But
even so, there are certain points, byroads, favorite hollows that one
evokes more eagerly and enjoys more tenderly than the rest of one’s
book. I have not reread Lolita since I went through the proofs in the
spring of 1955 but I find it to be a delightful presence now that it quietly
hangs about the house like a summer day which one knows to be bright
behind the haze. And when I thus think of Lolita, I seem always to pick
out for special delectation such images as Mr. Taxovich, or that class list
at Ramsdale school, or Charlotte saying “waterproof,” or Lolita in slow
motion advancing toward Humbert’s gifts, or the pictures decorating the
stylized garret of Gaston Godin, or the Kasbeam barber (who cost me a
month of work), or Lolita playing tennis, or the hospital at Elphinstone,
or pale, pregnant, beloved, irretrievable Dolly Schiller dying in Gray Star
(the capital town of the book), or the tinkling sounds of the valley town
coming up the mountain trail (on which I caught the first known female
of Lycaeides sublivens Nabokov). These are the nerves of the novel. These
are the secret points, the subliminal coordinates by means of which the
book is plotted—although I realize very clearly that these and other
scenes will be skimmed over and not noticed, or never even reached, by
those who begin reading the book under the impression that it is some-
thing on the lines of Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure or Les Amours de
Milord Grosvit. That my novel does contain various allusions to the
physiological urges of a pervert is quite true. But after all we are not
children, not illiterate juvenile delinquents, not English public school
boys who after a night of homosexual romps have to endure the paradox
of reading the Ancients in expurgated editions. (315–16; Nabokov’s
italics)
148
Forum
Like the book as a whole which “bright behind the haze” “glow[s …] in an
ever accessible remoteness,” Nabokov’s ten favorite images are invested with
hidden power readers may discover. Nabokov implies his ideal reader will
take these “subliminal coordinates by means of which the book is plotted”
as synecdochic indicators of a plot that runs deeper than the competition
between Quilty and Humbert for Lolita. Understanding that the book is not
pornography is only a first step; apprehension of Lolita as an aesthetic and
ethical whole requires that the reader notice and connect the details of the
“secret points,” “the nerves of the novel.” As he concludes his afterword,
Nabokov continues to gesture toward his conjuror’s tools in a clearly dis-
ingenuous assessment of his language, calling it “second-rate” and “devoid of
any of those apparatuses—the baffling mirror, the black velvet backdrop, the
implied associations and traditions—which the native illusionist, frac-tails
flying, can magically use to transcend the heritage in his own way”—as if these
gifts were not available and deftly wielded in what he calls “the purest of all,
the most abstract and carefully contrived” (SO 47) of his books!
Since chronological anomalies have attracted the attention of many critics,
not to be overlooked is an aberration in Nabokov’s list of secret points. He
presents the images in the order of their appearance in the book, with one
exception: the ninth subliminal coordinate, “pale, pregnant, beloved, ir-
retrievable Dolly Schiller dying in Gray Star (the capital town of the book),”
is actually the first to appear, being supplied by Ray in his Foreword (4). By
placing the ninth secret point out of order and designating Gray Star “the
capital town of the book,” Nabokov offers hints that it and its location, the
Foreword, and by extension the author of the Foreword, have special signi-
ficance. While Nabokov’s quartet of adjectives stresses the pathos of his
heroine’s premature death and his own tender feelings for her, the aberrant
placement of this secret point and its distinctive status attracts the reader’s
attention, marks it for particular scrutiny, and suggests a linkage with other
temporal anomalies such as the date of Humbert’s death as given by Ray. In
order to chart the course of the devil in Lolita’s details, I will peruse Ray’s
Foreword for hints of the editor’s project, document parallels between Ray’s
and Humbert’s language, and present a brief catalogue of some of Nabokov’s
cryptic clues. I will then marshal evidence of Ray’s operations in the “secret
points” and other key passages of the novel, evidence that supports the view
that Nabokov deliberately created the book’s chronological discrepancies,
among other pointers, to lead the reader to the unmasking of Ray and the
exposure of Humbert as false artist and insincere penitent.
Who’s Who in the Sublimelight
149
II
With evident conceit, John Ray in his Foreword offers teasing hints in ambi-
guous, multi-layered language not unlike Humbert’s slippery prose. After
he supplies the date and circumstances of Humbert’s death, Ray’s prideful
posturing as he claims kinship with his “eminent cousin” and basks in the
nepotistic glow of Clark’s choosing him as editor is underscored rather than
eclipsed by his characterization of his prize-winning book “Do the Senses
Make Sense?” as “a modest work” (3). The title of the book is a clear hint
to the reader to be on guard, not to trust appearances, a motif surfacing
again and again in the book’s ambiguous passages referring to clues and
camouflage, perception and deceit, creation and interpretation. The “Poling
Prize” Ray was awarded for his book is the center of a nexus of puns: “pol” is
mid-twentieth-century American vernacular for “politician,” linking Ray’s
abilities to Clark’s Washington connection; Ray’s citation in the Foreword of
Dr. Blanche Schwarzmann’s demographic statistics suggests familiarity with
“polls”; Humbert accompanies an expedition to “polar regions”; “poling”
as a verb means to push, poke, or pierce with a pole (obvious “Freudian”
connotations need not be ruled out). The play on “pushing” is particularly
germane to Ray’s motives in the Foreword, in which Clark’s editor “pushes”
himself, his nepotistic relative, his own “Do the Senses Make Sense?” and the
book under his editorship.
22
“Poling” also points obscurely to Quilty/Clark
and to Nabokov’s subliminal hints to the reader, since a “cue” is a pole in
one sense as well as a hint, poke, or clue in another. One recalls Quilty’s offer
to help Humbert retrieve his dropped pistol: “There should be a poker some-
where, why don’t I fetch it, and then we’ll fish out your property” (298). If, as I
suggest, Nabokov uses Ray throughout the book to provide hints, pokes, and
clues to the reader, his prize is well deserved.
“[S]uave John Ray” (as Nabokov calls him in his afterword) gives us almost
as many reasons to question his motives and reliability as does Humbert. Why
should we take Ray at his word when he claims his task as editor was a simple
matter of “the correction of obvious solecisms and the careful suppression of a
few tenacious details”
23
motivated by “taste” and “compassion”? If anything,
22. Nabokov used similar wordplay for a similar subject in a letter to Ed-
mund Wilson (April 19, 1952): “‘Pushkin’ himself is a good example of nepo-
tism (to ‘push’ one’s ‘kin’)” ( Karlinsky 305).
23. Interestingly, in the screenplay Ray refers to Humbert’s manuscript as
“a bundle of notes, a rough autobiography, poorly typed” (2–3), the triple
deprecation implying that heavy revision might have been in order.
150
Forum
the mention of “signposts and tombstones,” “invention,” and a “mask […]
which […] had to remain unlifted” (3) imply artful deceit—on Ray’s part as
much as anyone else’s. Since the last legal impediment to the publication of
Humbert’s memoir was removed by Lolita’s death in December of 1952, the
two years and seven months preceding the penning of Ray’s Foreword (dated
August 5, 1955) seem a long time for minor editorial corrections but ample
time for Ray to amend, expand, and revise Humbert’s story. Not only might
we doubt Ray’s assertion that the “remarkable memoir is presented intact”
(the ribald pun on “intact” carries far-reaching irony coming from a thera-
pist), but his claim to protect the anonymity of the principal characters is
immediately undercut by his providing information calculated to help in-
quisitive readers trace identities: Lolita’s real first name has been preserved;
“Haze” only rhymes with her surname; references to Humbert’s crime may
be found in daily newspapers of a specified period. Again, Ray swells with
self-importance, claiming prime credit for the elucidation of the mystery of
Humbert’s crime: “its cause and purpose would have continued to remain a
complete mystery, had not this memoir been permitted to come under my
reading lamp” (4), he tells us, while offering another early gesture toward
intense perusal or inspection of the text in an image that marks his identi-
fication with light and its effects.
24
More titillating, resonant details provide a context for the ninth secret point
and Ray’s subliminal signature. The pompously respectable Mr. “Windmuller”
brings us up to date on the current status of “Louise,”
25
his daughter, “Mona
Dahl,” Lolita’s high school confidante, and “Rita,” Humbert’s last consort.
Vivian Darkbloom, Quilty’s mistress and collaborator, gets a plug for her
forthcoming “My Cue,” called by (unnamed) “critics who have perused the
manuscript […] her best book,” this last phrase echoing Quilty’s facetious
appraisal of Humbert’s poetic sentence: “Well, sir, this is certainly a fine
poem. Your best as far as I am concerned” (300). Note as well that Clark, “now
of the District of Columbia bar” (3), is punningly linked with bar man/car
man Quilty, who according to Who’s Who in the Limelight was educated at
24. Eric Hyman credits Jessie Thomas Lokrantz for suggesting that Ray’s
name suggests light (59).
25. Here again a temporal anomaly lurks. Windmuller tells Humbert in
September 1952 that Louise has “just entered Beardsley College,” presumably
as a freshman (290). She is an exceptionally slow student if, as Ray says in
1955, she is “a college sophomore.” One might attribute the “error” to the
author; however, I see it as one of the “solecisms” Ray fails to correct. Note
Humbert’s remarks concerning “McFate’s inept secretary” (116) in Nabokov’s
fourth secret point (discussed below).
Who’s Who in the Sublimelight
151
Columbia University and “[s]tarted on a commercial career” before turning to
playwriting (31) (and later, pornography). Ray’s witty remark “The caretakers
of the various cemeteries involved report that no ghosts walk” doubles as
an authorial leg-pull and an early hint of the resurrection theme in a novel
teeming with specters and survivors. Meanwhile Ray locates Mrs. Schiller’s
death “in Gray Star” (4), a phrase Nabokov repeats verbatim in his afterword
when characterizing this remote principality as “the capital town of the book”
(316), again, a particularly pointed hint. The peculiar nature of the name of
this town bespeaks Ray’s vanity (since he has stashed his own surname within
it), his ingenuity (discarding the superfluous “n,” the remaining letters un-
scramble to reveal the anagram “gratis Ray”), and his intrusive energy, for as I
suggest farther on, throughout the book Nabokov embeds this anagram to
signal subliminally Ray’s “freely given” contributions to the text.
Gradually the outlines of Ray’s project become clear: the “editor” is a writer
and book promoter in the guise of a psychiatric authority offering expertise
and moral uplift to the public. Sex sells, so Ray is at pains to mention and
justify the inclusion of scenes of an “aphrodisiac” nature, while attesting that
“not a single obscene term is to be found in the whole book.” In other words,
for the book to become a mainstream best-seller, it must have sex, a cloak of
decency, and respectability. Respectability is provided by Clark’s professional
status, Ray’s association with good citizen “Windmuller,” the Poling Prize,
the Foreword’s emphasis on “ethical impact,” and Ray’s Ph.D. As a further
counterbalance to the book’s sensual content, Ray (in what I maintain is a self-
fulfilling prophecy) promises that H.H., no matter his faults, undergoes “a
moral apotheosis” (5), suggesting that Humbert emerges as a chastened and
perhaps redeemed sinner, a figure useful for edification. Again, Ray’s self-
promotion and prideful aspirations are evident in his claims that the book
is a triumph of artistic originality and that H.H.’s “case” is destined to become
a scientific “classic in psychiatric circles.” Furthermore, Ray concludes, the
book’s “ethical impact” should drive home a “general lesson” for the “serious
reader”:
the wayward child, the egotistic mother, the panting maniac—these are
not only vivid characters in a unique story: they warn us of dangerous
trends; they point out potent evils. “Lolita” should make all of us—
parents, social workers, educators—apply ourselves with still greater
vigilance and vision to the task of bringing up a better generation in a
safer world. (5-6)
Though Ray’s melodramatic didacticism is not shared by Nabokov, the author
slips in a wink here: Lolita does require that we read vigilantly and with vision
152
Forum
if we are not to be taken in by humbugs. At the same time that Ray endeavors
to make H.H.’s sordid confession into a politer and more salable account,
Nabokov presents Ray as the counterfeit, poshlost-pushing quack that he
is, thus remaining consistent with positions he took with regard to Freud
throughout his career.
While serving as an obvious object of Nabokov’s ongoing ridicule of the
psychoasinine, Ray’s voice at times blends with the undertones of his creator.
Some of what “suave John Ray” has to say of course also serves Nabokov’s own
need to highlight Lolita’s status as an artistic masterpiece as distinguished from
second-rate or pornographic literature.
26
The mention of Judge Woolsey’s
1933 decision regarding Ulysses, the functional necessity of sensuous scenes,
and the “shocking surprise” of all great original art is complementary to
Nabokov’s concerns in “On a Book Entitled Lolita.” Ray’s Foreword thus
establishes precedent for the author’s voice to be heard as an undertone in
frequent ambiguous reflections on games, clues, concealment and revision,
and not least emphatically in the final sentences of the book. Just as marked,
however, is the overlap between the voices of John Ray and H.H.
III
The fervency of the note on which Ray ends his Foreword, like his deceptive
arguments, vanity, and tendencies toward the grandiose, betrays Humbertian
qualities. What accounts for these similarities? It is possible the two men
coincidentally share certain characteristics of personality and expression. It is
also possible that in the time Ray has spent editing the book, his style has been
infected by Humbert’s. I will argue, however, that Nabokov makes Humbert
parrot Ray as a broad clue to the “editor’s” project. Shortly after losing Lolita
to Quilty, Humbert says of Trapp’s clues that they “had been tuned to my
mind and manner,” and goes on to note a number of similarities his nemesis
shares with him: “his genre, his type of humor—at its best at least—the tone
of his brain, had affinities with my own” (249). Humbert’s acknowledgement
of his affinities with Quilty unwittingly points to Ray’s modus operandi. If
my main premise is correct, that Ray has appropriated Humbert’s story, how
easily certain affinities of style, not to mention subject matter and turns of
plot, might be explained. While I will not attempt to isolate Humbert’s ori-
ginal voice as unmediated by Ray’s, I hope to show that Ray at times tunes
his language to H.H.’s, disguising his voice as Humbert’s in order to mock
and humiliate him, to portray Humbert as a classic “case,” and to deliver the
26. See Tammi (299–300) for a discussion of “a number of curious linkages
between [Ray’s] statements and some unmistakably Nabokovian positions.”
Who’s Who in the Sublimelight
153
promised “moral apotheosis.” As I have suggested, by thus absconding with
and violating Humbert’s text, Ray metaphorically conflates the roles of the
“therapist” and “the rapist,” abolishing the “nice spacing” that distinguishes
them, to paraphrase H.H. (150).
In the initial chapters of the book, the reader encounters background in-
formation designed to explain the origins of Humbert’s case and crime in
language that echoes Ray’s. In the “fancy prose style” of Chapter 1, Humbert
reveals the source of his obsession with Lolita: “Did she have a precursor? She
did, indeed she did. In point of fact, there might have been no Lolita at all had
I not loved, one summer, a certain initial girl-child” (9). Recall Ray’s strikingly
congruent comment in the Foreword: “had our demented diarist gone, in the
fatal summer of 1947, to a competent psychopathologist, there would have
been no disaster; but then, neither would there have been this book” (5). Also
in the Foreword, Ray says he is “repeating what he has stressed in his own
books and lectures,” and it is not hard to imagine that the following passage in
Chapter 3 of Part I reflects theories propounded in such books as “Do the
Senses Make Sense?”:
Annabel was, like the writer, of mixed parentage: half-English, half-
Dutch, in her case. I remember her features far less distinctly today than I
did a few years ago, before I knew Lolita. There are two kinds of visual
memory: one when you skillfully recreate an image in the laboratory of
your mind, with your eyes open (and then I see Annabel in such general
terms as “honey-colored skin,” “thin arms,” “brown bobbed hair,” “long
lashes,” “big bright mouth”); and the other when you instantly evoke,
with shut eyes, on the dark innerside of your eyelids, the objective, ab-
solutely optical replica of a beloved face, a little ghost in natural colors
(and this is how I see Lolita).
Let me therefore primly limit myself, in describing Annabel, to saying
she was a lovely child a few months my junior. (11–12)
There are subtle markers here, the junior John Ray’s words “case” (“as a
case history”), “general” (“a general lesson”) and “ghost” (“no ghosts walk”)
pointing to the author of the Foreword, while the phrase “skillfully recreate an
image” and “replica” covertly glance at the revision of Humbert’s memoir, to
which mention of the writer’s “mixed parentage” also offers a sly hint, Ray
being, in a sense, a less than benign kind of foster father to Humbert as he
recreates his life and voice. The phrase “dark innerside” evokes the subliminal
nature of a whole stratum of the novel’s clues (discussed below). Finally, John
Ray’s connection to John Lovely of “Who’s Who in the Limelight” in Chapter 8
receives an early mention here in the word “lovely.” Humbert follows some
154
Forum
details of his boyhood and his lost treasure Annabel with a conclusive insight
in Chapter 4 that parodies Freudian theory about the lasting impact of early
trauma:
I am convinced, however, that in a certain magic and fateful way Lolita
began with Annabel.
I also know that the shock of Annabel’s death consolidated the frus-
tration of that nightmare summer, made of it a permanent obstacle to
any further romance throughout the cold years of my youth. (13–14)
H.H. clinches Annabel’s connection to Lolita at the end of his account of his
“unsuccessful first tryst” in which his “senses were […] filled to the brim”:
“twenty-four years later, I broke her spell by incarnating her in another” (15).
Here again we get several subtle authorial nudges: “certain” is a characteristic
Ray locution (“certain morbid states” [3]; “a certain type of mind” [4]), “fate-
ful” anticipates Aubrey McFate, “frustration” contains a phonetic echo of
Ray’s surname, “senses” echoes Ray’s book title, and “incarnating her in an-
other” resonates with Quilty’s resurrection as Clarence Clark.
Echoes of Ray’s vocabulary and phraseology are not rare in Humbert’s
story. In the first four chapters of Part I, Ray’s “certain morbid states,” “Save
for the correction of obvious solecisms,” “ponderously capricious,” and “vigi-
lance and vision” become, in Humbert’s mouth, “a certain initial girl-child,”
“save for a pocket of warmth,” “poetically superstitious,” and “vicious vigi-
lance.” By informing us that H.H. “planned to take a degree in psychiatry”
before switching to English literature, Nabokov allows us to account for Ray
and Humbert’s common familiarity with the faith of Freud. Even so, the
sheer number of echoes of Ray’s Foreword in the vocabulary and phrasing of
Chapter 5 is striking.
27
Humbert even mentions Massachusetts, the state where
Ray composes the Foreword, and cites British legislation from 1933, the year
of Woolsey’s decision cited by Ray. Similarly, Humbert’s language resonates
27. Perfect matches between Humbert’s words and Ray’s in the Foreword
include “social workers,” “certain” (repeated), “nature,” “the reader,” “Of
course,” “community,” “entranced,” “great” (repeated), “normal” (repeated),
“despair,” “come under,” “mind” (repeated), “child” (repeated), “fateful,”
“adult,” “males,” “world” (repeated), “poignant,” “senses,” “wayward child,”
“intact,” and “development.” Overlapping language with slight variation
includes H.H.’s “mysterious,” “attractive,” “artist,” and “madman” for Ray’s
“mystery,” “attractiveness,” “art,” and “maniac” and H.H.’s “tenderness,”
“magic,” “surprised,” and “generally” for Ray’s “tendresse,” “magically,” “sur-
prised,” and “general.” Ray’s “case,” “perversions,” “ferocity,” and “gentle-
man” become in Chapter 5 “cases,” “perverse,” “fierceness,” and “gentlemen.”
Who’s Who in the Sublimelight
155
with Ray’s in the final paragraphs of the novel, with Humbert reproducing
Ray’s vocabulary in the use of “vivid,” “poignant,” “publication,” “obvious,”
“decision,” and “wish” (308–9). Ray’s phrases “throbs through his confession,”
“demented diarist,” and “better generation” become, in Humbert’s mouth
“throbs through my writing hand,” “demented giant,” and “later generations”
(309). Note as well the distinctive repetition of the third person impersonal
pronoun and the linking rhyme in the phrases “one would have to forego […]
one might ineptly accuse” (4–5) and “One had to choose […] one wanted
H.H. to exist […]” (309). But most of the evidence presented thus far of Ray’s
conspiracy is hardly subliminal; Nabokov himself directs us to many more
glowing secrets.
IV
As has already been suggested, Nabokov employs his cryptic clues at different
levels—often at the level of the chapter, paragraph, or sentence, but also at the
level of the phrase, the individual word, or even the letter. For example, one
type of submerged clue that demonstrates just how much Humbert is “covered
with Quilty” is Nabokov’s almost ubiquitous use of words with the letters
“q” and “cu.” Like fingerprints or graffiti, these signs of Quilty’s lurking pre-
sence appear most conspicuously on two of Quilty’s fictitious license plates
(“Q32888” and “CU88322” [251]) found among the puzzles and cryptograms
Quilty leaves for Humbert in the “paper chase” trail, but they litter the entire
novel.
28
Less common, but nevertheless persistent, are the triple c’s of Clarence
Choate Clark’s initials that recur fairly regularly in the alliteration of which
Nabokov is so fond. Like Humbert’s name, which Nabokov chose not only for
its nasty suggestive rumble but also for its potential to be used in various puns
(SO 26), John Ray’s name lends itself to a variety of uses in Lolita. Ray’s last
name resounds in the widespread occurrence of words with phonetic elements
rhyming with “Ray”—words like “great,” “strange,” “operations,” “rapist,”
and “radio.” (Recall that Nabokov has Ray point to the rhyming device early in
the Foreword: “‘Haze’ only rhymes with the heroine’s real surname.”) Also
throughout Lolita, among the pointers Nabokov employs to repeatedly invoke
Ray as a fateful agent are phonetic and visual puns on “Poling,” “cross,” and
“x” (significantly, Nabokov renders “shadowgraphs” in his Russian translation
of Lolita as “‘rengenovskie snimki’ – X Rays” [Salazkina]), as well as references
28. I would extend Tammi’s comment that “virtually any combination with
Q comes to suggest Quilty’s presence in the margin of Humbert’s narrative”
(280) to include the “cu” combination as well.
156
Forum
to radios, light and its effects, and “graphs” of various sorts.
29
As to Ray’s first
name, the peculiar prevalence of variants of “John” in Humbert’s memoir
offers Nabokov many opportunities to covertly invoke the editor’s vanity and
his involvement in Humbert’s life. Jean and John Farlow (“Jean” is “John” in
French, of course), the Jacks, Jackies, Johns, and Johnnys, including the “jack”
Humbert thinks of asking Quilty for at one point, albino Jack Humbertson,
even (especially, since he hints that H.H. is a hybrid of sorts) Jean-Jacques
Humbert—all may be seen as playful namesakes, the literary progeny, of
John Ray.
30
Such subliminal clues as these in Lolita complement Nabokov’s
well known use of lepidoptera as markers of authorial presence and power
operative at critical points in his character’s lives.
31
At the extreme end of obscurity lies the type of clue exemplified by the
embedded “Clare, Clare Q” in Clark’s name in the Foreword and the hidden
“Beale” in “Beardsley,” a kind of trace I call a “shadowgraph.” It seems ap-
propriate to call such cryptograms shadowgraphs; like the shadowgraphs Lolita
reports in the chapter with Nabokov’s fourth secret point (“We made shadow-
29. To take just a few examples: unwittingly invoking Ray’s book on the
senses once more, Humbert gets “in touch with a private detective, an ex-
pugilist” who, after taking Humbert’s money, checks “nonsense data” for two
years; foreshadowing the ex-pugilist’s sting is the extortion at the hands of an
“ex-detective” in Paris who “had served in the police”; in the middle of Hour-
glass Lake, Humbert (a puppet watching puppets) knows “exactly” who the
puppets working on the far shore are: one is a retired policeman of Polish de-
scent”; during Humbert’s last meeting with Dolly, “an afterwork radio” sings
“of folly and fate”; at the Enchanted Hunters, Humbert says “a skeleton glow
came through the Venetian blind from the outside arclights; these intercrossed
rays penetrated the darkness of the bedroom and revealed the […] situation.”
30. A particularly nice example of Ray’s “toying” with H.H. follows the
“hitting the jackpot clatter” of coins returned to Humbert in a phone booth
immediately after he learns that Lolita is in fact on a hike he had earlier fab-
ricated for the Farlows (100), when Humbert is made to wonder “if this
sudden discharge, this spasmodic refund, was not correlated somehow, in the
mind of McFate, with my having invented that little expedition before ever
learning of it as I did now” (107).
31. In addition to such lepidopteral references in Lolita noted by Appel
(327), I would include more abstract images such as the “doors open like
wings” on the Packard that kills Charlotte, the “millions of so-called ‘millers’”
Humbert sees as he returns alone to the motel in Elphinstone after leaving
Lolita at the hospital, and the moths in H.H.’s headlights as he drives to and
from Pavor Manor the night before he confronts Quilty. See also notes 43, 44,
74, and related discussion in the essay.
Who’s Who in the Sublimelight
157
graphs. Gee, what fun” [114]), these puzzles reveal (to eyes that cannot unsee
them) the letters of hidden names embedded in a matrix of surrounding text
just as the radiograph or X-ray reveals the bones within the flesh.
32
Lolita’s
comment is pointedly recalled by H.H. at the close of Chapter 30 of Part II in
wording and imagery that links Ray’s scheme, Humbert’s heart condition,
tantalization, the resurrection theme, subliminal subtexts, Quilty’s ingenious
play, and a Proustian echo:
Some way further across the street, neon lights flickered twice slower than
my heart: the outline of a restaurant sign, a large coffee-pot, kept burst-
ing, every full second or so, into emerald life, and every time it went out,
pink letters saying Fine Foods relayed it, but the pot could still be made
out as a latent shadow teasing the eye before its next emerald resurrection.
We made shadowgraphs. This furtive burg was not far from The En-
chanted Hunters. I was weeping again, drunk on the impossible past.”
(282)
Quilty’s name hiding in the word “quietly” in one of the more famous pas-
sages of the novel
33
qualifies as a shadowgraph as I use the term, and there
are also dozens of examples of the letters of John Ray’s surname repeatedly
occurring in clustered words or phrases which attract the eye of a reader
searching for clues in response to Nabokov’s persistent needling. For instance,
in the passage above, Ray’s name is embedded twice as a shadowgraph, the
two cryptograms spaced, like the blinking light, at an interval of a “full second
or so.”
34
Here Nabokov literally puts Ray’s double name up in lights while
32. Dolinin comments on Nabokov’s planting of Lear’s name in a “lyrical
passage” with a Shakespearean subtext in Part II’s Chapter 32 where Humbert
recalls rocking Lo/Cordelia in his “marbLE ARms” (“Lolita in Russian”
325–26).
33. Proffer, discussing Humbert’s near revelation of Quilty’s name to the
reader after Lolita reveals it to him (“Quietly the fusion took place” [272])
comments: “Quietly, of course, is a phonetic and visual imitation of Quilty”
(75).
34. “pink letteRs sA Ying Fine Foods RelAYed it”— Such a trace would
seem to be a variant forerunner of Nabokov’s use of an acrostic composed of
the initial letters of words in the last paragraph of “The Vane Sisters” to reveal
a spectral message, and, in the same story, the initial letters of words in a
phrase of the narrator “to incorporate the signature of the first dead sister:
S-y-b-i-l” as noted by Tammi (295). Not infrequently, as in the present case,
Nabokov locates the shadowgraph in a related image. Another such subliminal
reference to Ray (complete with degree) can be seen in the “agent of fate”
158
Forum
flashing accompanying hints: “twice,” “letters saying,” the alliterative pair of
capital F’s, and the phrase “teasing the eye.”
It might be objected that some of the patterns to which I assign significance
merely reflect the paroxysms of a fevered brain having contracted Humbert’s
paranoia. No doubt there are happy coincidences; I can only repeat that the
book itself unremittingly encourages and rewards such scrutiny. Over and over
we are bombarded with allusions to the acts of writing, altering, revising,
changing, mimicking, arranging, parodying, disguising, deceiving, displacing,
faking, replacing—literary creation and language play of all kinds—and the
need to interpret such play. Humbert says of his diary: “I wrote it really twice
[…] with many erasures and corrections” (40); Pratt tells us that Lolita enjoys
“private jokes of her own, transposing for instance the first letters of some of
her teachers’ names” (195); in an aside to Lolita, Humbert breathes, “I have
camouflaged everything, my love” (267). On the day Humbert discovers
Lolita’s obliteration of Quilty’s license number, a clear foreshadowing of the
fanciful license plates in the “paper chase,” his minute observations of her
obfuscations contain a solid authorial poke to the reader:
I have to go into those details (which in themselves can interest only a
professional psychologue) because otherwise the reader (ah, if I could
visualize him as a blond-bearded scholar with rosy lips sucking la pomme
de sa canne as he quaffs my manuscript!) might not understand the
quality of the shock I experienced upon noticing that the P had acquired
the bustle of a B and that the 6 had been deleted altogether. The rest, with
erasures revealing the hurried shuttle smear of a pencil’s rubber end, and
with parts of numbers obliterated or reconstructed in a child’s hand,
presented a tangle of barbed wire to any logical interpretation. (226)
The echoes of Ray’s surname in “erasures” and “obliterated,” the shadowgraph
of Ray’s name in a phrase that describes him,
35
and the suggestive “recon-
structed” can all be read as pointing to Clark’s editor of choice, just as
“quaffs,” “quality,” and “acquired” evoke Quilty. The shock H.H. experiences
passage quoted above, in which Humbert takes Beale for “pRecise fAte, that
sYnchronizing Phantom, mixeD […].” More compact examples, often sug-
gestively placed, include words like “really,” “crazy,” and “already,” words
where the name appears in contiguous letters in order (“arrayed, “betrayed,”
and “gray” are favorites), words that pun on the name itself, (“‘Ray,’ said Lo
for hurray”), and even anagrammatic words with the letters scrambled like the
husbands in one of “Pym, Roland”’s stage credits (see below) as in “wary”
“angry,” and “diary.”
35. “pRofessionAl psYchologue”
Who’s Who in the Sublimelight
159
when he discovers Lolita’s revisions (like his shock of realization in the bar-
ber’s chair in Kasbeam [213]) is the inverse of the reader’s pleasurable surprise
when recognizing the artful beauties of the novel.
Overlooking such camouflage leads to Connolly’s judgment that “‘the
cryptogrammic paper chase’ […] provides little more illumination for the
reader than it does for Humbert” (56). But by performing manipulations
rather similar to the transpositions Lolita practices on her teachers’ names,
the reader can be well ahead of Humbert by the time he observes, in the
“paper chase” of Part II’s Chapter 23, that among the “verbal phantoms
turning, perhaps, into living vacationists” is one “Johnny Randall, Ramble,
Ohio.”
36
Even clearer is Ray’s subliminal claim to have freely given us “Dr.
Gratiano Forbeson, Mirandola, NY,”
37
“your brother,” Mary Lore tells Hum-
bert. As Nabokov has Ray tell us in the Foreword, “a great work of art […]
should come as a more or less shocking surprise.” With these overt and covert
pointers in mind, I turn now to an examination of the “nerves of the novel”
themselves. For the most part, my examination focuses on the chapters con-
taining Nabokov’s “secret points,” but I will also refer along the way to some
other key passages “the subliminal co-ordinates” illuminate (the book’s final
chapters among them), in a somewhat detailed but by no means exhaustive
analysis of Ray’s involvement in the novel’s plot.
V
Mr. Taxovich, Nabokov’s first nerve of the novel, appears in Chapter 8 of Part
I as the man who takes Valeria away from H.H. in an early skirmish with fate
where Humbert’s cruelty and vanity are on full view even if certain subliminal
hints are more obscure. Declining to “beat her up in the street,” Humbert
contemplates “hurting her very horribly” in private, but never gets the chance,
and tells us his “little revenge” is only realized with the news of Valeria’s death
in childbirth years later. When Valeria tells H.H. of the other man in her life,
H.H. makes clear that it is not the loss of Valeria that bothers him so much as
Valeria’s audacity in challenging his prerogatives:
here she was, Valeria, the comedy wife, brazenly preparing to dispose in
her own way of my comfort and fate. I demanded her lover’s name. I
repeated my question; but she kept up a burlesque babble, discoursing
on her unhappiness with me and announcing plans for an immediate
divorce. “Mais qui est-ce?” I shouted at last, striking her on the knee with
my fist; and she, without even wincing, stared at me as if the answer were
36. “JOHNnY Randall”
37. “GRATIano ForbeSon, MiRAndola, NY”
160
Forum
too simple for words, then gave a quick shrug and pointed at the thick
neck of the taxi driver. He pulled up at a small café and introduced him-
self. I do not remember his ridiculous name but after all those years I
remember him clearly—a stocky White Russian ex-colonel with a bushy
mustache and a crew cut; there were thousands of them plying that fool’s
trade in Paris. (28)
Besides portraying H.H.’s vanity and cruelty here, Nabokov establishes a major
Humbertian failing—missing the obvious. Rather conspicuously, the Taxovich
episode prefigures Humbert’s loss of Lolita to Quilty: farther down the page,
H.H. says Taxovich spoke of Valeria “as if she were a kind of little ward that
was in the act of being transferred, for her own good, from one wise guardian
to another even wiser one.” Taxovich anticipates Quilty by following Humbert
and Valeria in a car, by speaking bad French, by seeming “to be all over the
place at once,” by not flushing the toilet, by being “broad-shouldered,” and
by seeming to be made of “pig iron” (“Where is the hog now?” [276]). The
“ingenious play staged for [Humbert] by Quilty” is foreshadowed by H.H.’s
reference to the ex-colonel’s manners “as a small sideshow in the theatricals I
had been inveigled in”; the backhand slap Humbert fails to give Valeria “across
the cheekbone” is the one he brutally administers to Lolita’s “hot, hard little
cheekbone” at the picnic ground just beyond Wace (227); more obviously, of
course, Valeria’s dying in childbirth points to Dolly Schiller’s sad end.
Not so obvious are subliminal pointers to the powers of McFate in the
Taxovich episode. In addition to the covert allusion to Vivian Darkbloom’s
biography (“I repeated my q […]”) and the play on “Clare” in “clearly,” the
quoted passage’s fingerprints of Ray and Quilty visible or audible in “bra-
zenly,” “question,” “qui,” “quick,” “ridiculous,” “quite,” “ex-colonel,” “cut,”
and “trade” are just a sample of the chapter’s more than sixty combined
references to the two kinsmen. Also not to be overlooked is the lepidopteral
metaphor used to express the deterioration of Humbert and Valeria’s mar-
riage: “moth holes had appeared in the plush of matrimonial comfort.” But
it is near the end of the chapter that pointers to the McFate conspiracy pile
up—some starkly clear, others extremely obscure. The name “Percy Elphin-
stone” of course foreshadows another of the novel’s “secret points,” the fateful
terminus where Humbert loses Lolita. The triple initials of Clarence Choate
Clark nest comfortably among the Roman numerals of the publication year
of the Dickens set where they are matched with three X’s (“N.Y., G.W. Dilling-
ham, Publisher, MDCCCLXXXVII”). Of the novel’s three main characters,
only Clare Quilty’s name in Who’s Who in the Limelight is free of disguise,
Lolita and Humbert (ostensibly) being represented by “Dolores Quine” and
“Roland Pym.” Among the coded references in the dramatic credits radiating
Who’s Who in the Sublimelight
161
light into many dark corners of the novel, Nabokov scatters several of Ray’s
fingerprints (“training,” “Strange” (repeated), “collaboration,” “Strangers”)
and provides a cluster of shadowgraphs of Ray’s name,
38
the first visible in
the transposed name of Roland Pym, thus overlapping his identity with Hum-
bert’s. The titles of Who’s Who’s stage credits for Pym point to a number of
“his many [subliminal] appearances” in the novel.
39
As Taxovich’s chapter
concludes, Humbert directly instructs Clarence Clark not to correct a “slip
of [his] pen” in Dolores Quine’s entry where he writes “disappeared” for
“appeared.” The instruction to Clark and the slip itself, “disappeared,” at once
remind us of Clark’s authority over the manuscript and foreshadow both
Lolita’s vanishing and, in another sense, Humbert’s own. Humbert may think
38. In addition to RolAnd PYm’s name, shadowgraphs of Ray’s surname
occur in “ElsinoRe PlAYhouse,” “DReAming of You,” “BoRn in OceAn CitY,”
“tuRned to plAYwriting,” “MushRoom, FAtherlY,” “otheRs. His mAnY,”
“aRe notAble. Little NYmph,” “photogRAphY,” “BoRn in 1882, in DAYton,”
“AmeRicAn AcademY,” “FiRst plAYed,” and “thiRty plAYs.”
39. Ray’s name in Pym’s “debut,” Sunburst, is easily spotted: “Then came
two or three dim RAYs of hope—before the ultimate sunburst” (90); Ray’s
name resonates in a description of Jean Farlow’s portrait of her niece, The Girl
in Green: “I remember praising […] little Rosaline Honeck, a rosy honey in a
Girl Scout uniform, beret of green worsted, belt of green webbing” (79);
Scrambled Husbands points to Humbert’s replacement of Harold Haze, in a
line where a sly reference to Ray’s rewriting of Humbert’s memoirs (“replica”)
is followed by a Ray shadowgraph: “I felt no special urge to supply the Hum-
bert line with a replica of Harold’s production (Lolita, with an incestuous
thrill, I had grown to RegArd as mY child)” (80); at the end of Humbert’s
interview with Pratt, The Strange Mushroom (the adjective being a shadow-
graph in “strangle”) brackets shadowgraphs of Ray’s double name tellingly
combined with the suggestive “doctor” and an “x” pun: “Should I marry Pratt
and strangle her? ‘…And perhaps youR fAmilY doctor might like to examine
heR physicAllY—just a routine check-up. She is in Mushroom’” (197); John
Lovely’s appearance anticipates Mushroom: “‘you should have youR fAmilY
doctor tell her the facts of life and […] allow her to enjoy the company of her
schoolmates’ brothers at the Junior Club or in Dr. Rigger’s organization, or in
the lovely homes of our paRents.’ ‘She mAY meet boys in her own lovely
home,’ I said” (195); I Was Dreaming of You is echoed in a number of passages,
but its funniest incarnation is Humbert’s nightmare of “gratuitous and
horribly exhausting congress with a small hairy hermaphrodite, a total
stranger,” an image discussed below in connection with secret point number
four. See notes 60 and 61.
162
Forum
he has “only words to play with,” but the novel is thronged with playmates
with their hands in the game.
Nabokov follows the evocations of Ray and Quilty/Clark at the end of the
Taxovich chapter with a tangle of innuendo in the digressive skaz of Chapter 9,
in which seemingly gratuitous nonsense obliquely refers to the secret plot of
Lolita. Out of Humbert’s mouth come subtle allusions to the Poling Prize
winner’s inventiveness when he tells us a “soft job fate offered […] consisted
mainly of thinking up and editing perfume ads” (32) and when on his “expedi-
tion” into “polar regions” he says he “concocted a perfectly spurious and very
racy report.” (34). The initials of the eminent Clarence Choate Clark appear in
close proximity to one of Humbert’s “favorite doctors, a charming cynical
chap,” a kinsman of the leader of the expedition, and the triple c’s wink once
more in a teasing reference to mysterious powers when Humbert tells us Bert,
a minor double of H.H.’s, “maintained that the big men on our team, the real
leaders we never saw, were mainly engaged in checking the influence of climatic
amelioration on the coats of the artic fox” (33). The chapter contains many
characteristic Nabokovian taunts and teases: Humbert sits “on a boulder
under a completely translucent sky (through which, however, nothing of im-
portance showed)”;
40
the expedition “may have been tracking to its lair (some-
where on Prince of Wales’ Island, I understand) the wandering and wobbly
north magnetic pole,” but “was not really concerned with Victoria Island
copper or anything like that, as I learned later from my genial doctor; for the
nature of its real purpose was what is termed ‘hush-hush,’
41
and so let me add
merely that whatever it was, that purpose was admirably
42
achieved” (34).
Oblivious to inimical forces, cockily confident Humbert prattles on,
mocked by McFate. The repetition of “admirably” farther down the page
prompts the reader not to miss the lepidopteral pun: the red admiral or
admirable butterfly, as Appel reminds us in connection with Nabokov cameo
“fat, powdered Mrs. Leigh (born Vanessa van Ness),”
43
“figures throughout
40. By having Humbert deny significance, Nabokov invites us to look for
ourselves: “tRAnslucent skY.”
41. Near the novel’s end, Nabokov nods in the direction of this chapter
when Humbert tells Mrs. Chatfield that Lo “had just married a bRilliAnt
Young mining engineer with a hush-hush job in the Northwest” (290), a
pointer supporting Humbert’s thrice-repeated “Canada” at the Schillers (274).
42. “admiRAblY”
43. The likelihood of Mrs. Leigh’s impersonating Nabokov is reinforced by
Humbert’s attempt to escape the “VIcious VIgilANce of her family” (14). The
admirable reappears on the tennis courts of the Champion Hotel, followed
closely by yet another suspicious character in a bit part. See notes 31 and 74.
Who’s Who in the Sublimelight
163
Nabokov” (335). Even the promiscuous “nutritionist […] a Dr. Anita John-
son,” turns out to be a double agent.
44
Especially telling irony accompanies
Humbert’s reassurances to the reader following another “bout with insanity”:
I owe my complete restoration to a discovery I made while being treated
at that particular very expensive sanatorium. I discovered there was
an endless source of robust enjoyment in trifling with psychiatrists:
cunningly leading them on; never letting them see that you know all the
tricks of the trade; inventing for them elaborate dreams, pure classics in
style (which make them, the dream-extortionists, dream and wake up
shrieking; teasing them with fake “primal scenes”; and never allowing
them the slightest glimpse of one’s real sexual predicament (34).
Echoing both Ray’s Foreword (“classic”) and Quilty’s “I know all the ropes,”
Humbert’s claims are a mirror image of the real situation: it is dream-
extortionist Ray who trifles with Humbert in the fakery of his “completely
restored” memoirs, invented for the consumption of the gullible reading
public and for the delight of the perceptive. Given the clustering subliminal
traces of both Cue and Ray in the above passage,
45
there is good reason to
suspect that the “powerful newcomer, a displaced (and, surely, deranged)
celebrity, known for his knack of making patients believe they had witnessed
their own conception” (34–35) is both the “father” of Humbert and the
arranger of Lolita and Valeria’s deaths “in childbed.”
Nabokov’s second secret point, the Ramsdale School class list, appears
in Chapter 11. Humbert’s introduction of “[e]xhibit number two,” his re-
surrected pocket diary, points to Ray and Quilty. Humbert’s description of the
diary is suggestive: “bound in black imitation leather,” a product of Massa-
chusetts (the home state of Roland Pym and Ray’s Foreword), written “really
twice.” In addition to these veiled references to Ray’s scheme, Nabokov
embeds subliminal credit by the repetition of “really,” a convenient word to
contain Ray’s name, and by having Humbert invoke the resurrection motif:
44. The double name of Rita in the expedition’s “nutRITionist […] A DR.
AnITA Johnson” anticipates her lepidoptera-laced appearance in the skaz of
Part II’s Chapter 26, picked up by Humbert “one depRAved MaY evening”
“under the sign of the Tigermoth,” his “senses very slightly stirred.” Rita’s
brother, a “politician, mayor and booster of his grain-handling home town”
pays “his great little sister” to stay out of “great little Grainball City,” but Rita is
drawn “Grainball-ward” in a “fatal attraction,” “‘going round and round,’ as
she phrased it, ‘like a God-damn mulberry moth’” (258–59).
45. In “particular,” “expensive,” “cunningly,” “trade,” “dream-extortion-
ists,” and “sexual.”
164
Forum
“what we examine now (by courtesy of a photographic memory) is but [the
diary’s] brief materialization, a puny unfledged phoenix” (40). The reader with
an eidetic memory will notice that Humbert’s language in Chapter 11 parallels
language in Who’s Who in the Limelight and the Foreword: H.H. writes “on the
leaves of what is commercially known as a ‘typewriter tablet’” (Quilty “[s]tarted
on a commercial career” [31]); Humbert says “[t]he reader may check the
weather data in the Ramsdale Journal for 1947” (Nabokov’s italics) just as Ray
refers the inquisitive reader to “the daily papers for September–October 1952”
(4); in the next sentence, Humbert’s phrase “A few days before” echoes Ray’s
reference to the diarist’s death “a few days before his trial was scheduled to
start” (3). Like the Taxovich chapter with its prefiguring of Quilty’s theft of
Lolita, Humbert’s dream in Chapter 11 offers a foreglimpse of Humbert as
bungling assassin, with “one bullet after another feebly drop[ping] on the floor
from the sheepish muzzle” of the gun he aims “at a bland, quietly interested
enemy” (47). More explicitly, in Humbert’s diary entry for a Monday, Nabo-
kov has Humbert characterize himself as “Ray-like” (50), and supports the link
with a chorus of words with either internal phonetic rhymes with “Ray” or the
embedded name itself.
46
Nabokov intertwines the subliminal references to Ray
with Humbert’s notions of fate. Humbert wants to go to the lake. Tuesday’s
brief entry mentions adverse weather (Humbert has frequent need of a rain-
coat in the novel) and poses the question, “Is it Fate scheming?” In the last
sentence of the entry for Wednesday, Humbert says he “prayed we would
never get to that store, but we did.”
Thursday’s diary entry contains the class list itself, which links Ray’s name
with that of Aubrey McFate. Ray’s first name is reproduced in the Jack and
John of young Beale and Cowan, his last name echoed in the first name on the
list, Grace Angel. In Humbert’s rhapsodically ambiguous paean to Lolita’s
name immediately following the class list, Nabokov’s taunting voice blends
with Humbert’s while masking John Ray’s:
A poem, a poem, forsooth! So strange and sweet was it to discover this
“Haze, Dolores” (she!) in its special bower of names, with its bodyguard
of roses—a fairy princess between her two maids of honor. I am trying to
analyze the spine-thrill of delight it gives me, this name among all those
others. What is it that excites me almost to tears (hot, opalescent, thick
tears that poets and lovers shed)? What is it? The tender anonymity of
this name with its formal veil (“Dolores”) and that abstract transposition
46. “Rainy,” “traced,” “prey,” “refrigerator,” “radio,” “gray,” and “tray.”
On the page following the class list there are five more: “Grace,” “strangers,”
“demonstrations,” “brave,” and “rage.”
Who’s Who in the Sublimelight
165
of first name and surname, which is like a pair of new pale gloves or a
mask? Is “mask” the keyword? Is it because there is always delight in the
semitranslucent mystery, the flowing charshaf, through which the flesh
and the eye you alone are elected to know smile in passing at you alone?
(52–53)
Humbert’s paroxysm is brought on by “Haze, Dolores”; Nabokov (and per-
haps we can also hear Ray chortling in the background) in a quieter undertone
takes pleasure in other quite different names. “Mask” is the keyword, and not
only because it applies to the masked author, as Appel notes (362). In the
following chapter, Humbert assigns the name Aubrey McFate to the inventive
devil arranging his fortunes, but it is Nabokov (via Ray) who places the name
in the Ramsdale class list without Humbert’s having seemed to notice. In the
list itself, a nice bit of symmetry cozily flanks “McFate, Aubrey,” like Dolores
with her “bodyguard of roses,” with two companions whose names contain, as
the name itself does, the scrambled letters of Ray’s surname (Vivian McCrystal
and Anthony Miranda). Furthermore, close inspection of Humbert’s attempt
to analyze his spine-thrill reveals Ray’s subliminal name itself flanking “Haze,
Dolores” with the phonetic rhyme “strange” and the shadowgraph following
“bodyguard”
47
followed by three others.
48
Finally, by having Humbert em-
phasize “that abstract transposition of first name and surname,” Nabokov
redirects the reader’s eye to “McFate, Aubrey” and the chime Ray’s name
makes with its final syllable. It is perhaps worth noting that in the class list,
in addition to one of the names of Lolita’s “maids of honor” (Mary Rose
Hamilton, the other being girl in green Rosaline Honeck) and Aubrey McFate
and his “bodyguards,” the only other names which contain all the letters of
Ray’s surname are associated with significant actors in the plot: Mary Beale’s
father runs over Charlotte; Marguerite Byron’s father supplies Humbert’s
ineffectual drugs.
Nabokov strews the path to his third subliminal coordinate, Charlotte
saying “waterproof,” with coy phrases hinting at artistic camouflage,
49
puns,
phonetic echoes and shadowgraphs of Ray’s name intermixed with Quilty’s
47. “Roses—A fairY”
48. “tRying to AnalYze,” “tendeR AnonYmity,” “semitRAnslucent mYs-
tery”
49. In addition to the ones discussed, phrases such as “fictional gesture,”
“notice the falsity,” “distinguish at once a false intonation,” “hear a false note,”
“merged with the light and shade,” “could be distinguished,” “near enough to
witness,” “just far enough not to observe,” “too far to distinguish,” “stark
lucidity,” “trying to see things,” “examined,” and “concealment, spying.”
166
Forum
fingerprints,
50
and words resonating with the Foreword’s vocabulary
51
and
subject matter. Jean Farlow, “in quest of rare light effects […] had seen Leslie
taking a dip ‘in the ebony’ (as John had quipped) at five o’clock in the morning
last Sunday.”
52
After Humbert remarks that the water “‘must have been quite
cold,” Charlotte offers a rich cluster of compact references to Ray’s scheme:
“‘That is not the point,’ said the logical doomed dear. ‘He is subnormal, you
see. And,’ she continued (in that carefully phrased way of hers that was
beginning to tell on my health), ‘I have a very definite feeling our Louise is
in love with that moron’” (82). Charlotte’s verbal gestures (“the point,” “you
see,” “carefully phrased way”), her play on “subliminal” (“subnormal”),
the phonetic echo of Ray’s surname (“phrased”), and the chime with Wind-
muller’s daughter’s name from the Foreword (“Louise”) provide a cozy niche
for Ray’s name and degree in shadowgraph form.
53
A little farther down
the page Nabokov employs capital letters to draw the reader’s eye to Ray’s
shadowgraph in Charlotte’s tossed off sequel: “‘Are you bothered by Romantic
Associations?’ queried my wife—in allusion to her first surrender.” Three
pages later, Charlotte literally throws herself into the effort: “Charlotte flung
herself forward with a great splash” (85). As he rationalizes his inability to
drown Charlotte, Humbert’s reflections on the nature of sex offenders and
social mores are strongly reminiscent of Ray’s vocabulary and his remarks on
similar subjects in the Foreword (4–5):
50. Besides the ones cited, puns and echoes of “Ray” and “X-ray” include
“trained,” “raise,” “exhalation,” “straight,” “training,” “expression,” “in-
gratiating,” “Excuse,” “operator” (repeated), “explosive,” “except,” “train”
(repeated), “exactly,” “gravely,” “strangers,” “rape,” “integrated,” “extended,”
“examined” (repeated), “trail,” and “traitor.” Shadowgraphs of Ray’s name
in single words alone include “mortally,” “cranky,” “certainly,” “really,”
“rapidly,” the delicious “coronary,” “gravely,” “practically,” and “generally.”
Invocations of Quilty include “cut,” “quizzical,” “queried,” “obscure,” “qui,”
“Excuse,” “accuracy,” “concubine,” “Lacour” (anticipating and punning
on “Laqueue” (290), “miraculous,” “curve,” “curtain,” “clearly,” “quite”
(repeated), “innocuous,” “inadequate,” “coquettishly,” and “his nephew.”
51. Puns on the “Poling Prize” include “policeman,” “Polish,” and “police”;
“child,” “taste,” “crime,” “certain,” “surprise,” “fatal,” “star,” “coronary,”
“1947,” “nature,” and “community” all appear in the Foreword; Humbert uses
approximate words such as “male,” “ghost,” “classical,” “scientist,” “gentle-
men,” “throbbing,” and “adults” for Ray’s “males,” “ghosts,” “classic,” “scien-
tific,” “gentleman,” “throbs,” and “adult.”
52. “moRning lAst SundaY”
53. “He is subnoRmAl, You see […] PhraseD”
Who’s Who in the Sublimelight
167
were I still to go through with the ordeal, her ghost would haunt me all
my life. Perhaps if the year were 1447 instead of 1947 I might have
hoodwinked my gentle nature by administering her some classical poison
from a hollow agate, some tender philter of death. But in our middle-
class nosy era it would not have come off […]. Nowadays you have to be
a scientist if you want to be a killer. […] Ladies and gentlemen of the jury,
the majority of sex offenders that hanker for some throbbing, sweet-
moaning, physical but not necessarily coital, relation with a girl-child, are
innocuous, inadequate, passive, timid strangers who merely ask the
community to allow them to pursue their practically harmless, so-called
aberrant behavior […] without the police and society cracking down
upon them. (87–88)
As the chapter concludes, the “waterproof” passage itself pointedly teases
the reader, offers portents of Humbert’s future, and indicates other passages
which Nabokov playfully marks as “key” in more ways than one. Jean’s
examination of Charlotte’s gift and her placement of Humbert’s hand “palm
up” juxtaposed with Nabokov’s nudge in Charlotte’s “You could see anything
that way” suggest reading H.H.’s palm for his future and scanning the text
for surprising discoveries. Bracketing Charlotte’s fish-mouthed word, Jean
Farlow’s “I even noticed something you overlooked […] your wrist watch” and
“He is really a freak, that man” (89) anticipate the showdown at Pavor Manor
where Humbert discovers a key he “had overlooked,” Quilty tries to bribe
Humbert with an “exciting little freak,” and H.H. “consult[s] [his] wrist
watch” with its missing crystal, itself a suggestion of lost time.
54
As to the
authorship of the book’s concluding chapters, Quilty offers the most pointed
indication as he tries to make a deal with Humbert. Quilty says he is “ready
54. By the time Humbert’s watch loses its crystal (in which Ray’s scrambled
surname hides) both the watch and Humbert have ceased to be “waterproof.”
As the agent of McFate, Ray repeatedly plagues Humbert with bad weather,
metaphorically enveloping him in “a number of great thunderstorms—or
perhaps, there was but one single storm which progressed across country in
ponderous frogleaps and which we could not shake off just as we could not
shake off detective Trapp”; Humbert drives away from the Schillers’ “through
the drizzle of the dying day, with the windshield wipers in full action but
unable to cope with [his] tears” and gets bogged down in mud taking a short
cut; walking for help he gets soaked by rain, not having “the strength to go
back for a macintosh”; on the morning of Quilty’s execution, a “thunderstorm
accompanie[s him] most of the way,” and in an image that parallels his feeling
“all covered with Quilty,” he stands ignored on Quilty’s stairs, “a raincoated
phantasm,” thoroughly “covered” by Ray.
168
Forum
to make unusual amends” (301), echoing Humbert’s wonderful “all this
amended, perhaps” in the chapter with Nabokov’s second “secret point” (47).
He goes on to offer Humbert Pavor Manor, “gratis,” and “also gratis, as house
pet, a rather exciting little freak, a young lady with three breasts, one a dandy
[…] a rare and delightful marvel of nature.”
55
Perhaps Quilty deserves re-
surrection as a reward for his sly puns pointing to the subliminal subplot:
“soyons rai[…]” and “to borrow and to borrow and to borrow […].”
56
Quilty
follows up the offer of the little freak and his wardrobe with his erotica
collection:
Just to mention one item: the in folio de-luxe Bagration Island by the
explorer and psychoanalyst Melanie Weiss, a remarkable lady, a re-
markable work—drop that gun—with photographs of eight hundred
and something male organs she examined and measured in 1932 on
Bagration, in the Barda Sea, very illuminating graphs, plotted with love
under pleasant skies—drop that gun—and moreover I can arrange for
you to attend executions, not everybody knows that the chair is painted
yellow—
57
(302)
Between his next two bullets on the same page Humbert is inconvenienced by
the “key [he] had overlooked.”
58
Gesturing toward the mixed influences of Ray
and Quilty, the “waterproof” passage subliminally links these agents of McFate
55. “GRATIS, as house pet, a rather exciting little fReAk, a Young lady with
three bReasts, one A dandY”
56. Appel notes “for this pun Quilty deserves to die” (448).
57. “BaGRATIon ISland […] exploreR And psYchoanalyst […] RemArk-
able ladY […] with Photographs of eight hundreD […] BaGRATIon, in the
Barda Sea […] graPHs, plotteD […] moreoveR I cAn arrange for You […]
chaiR is pAinted Yellow”
58. Proffer notes a clue parallel to “Bagration Island” in the “paper chase”
hiding Quilty: “Quelquepart Island = Quilty” (16). Often when speaking of
keys and keywords, Nabokov prompts us to look for Ray’s subliminal sig-
nature in the text; e.g.: “When, throuGh decoRATIonS of light and shade, we
dRove up to 14 ThAYer Street, a grave little lad met us with the keys and a note
from Gaston who had rented the house for us. My Lo, without GRAnTIng
her new SurRoundings one glAnce, unseeinglY turned on the radio to which
instinct led heR And laY down on the livinG Room sofA wiTh a batch of old
magazIneS which in the same precise and blind manneR she lAnded bY dip-
ping her hand into the netheR AnatomY of a lamp table” (176). This game is
replayed on pages 53 (“Is ‘mask’ the keyword?”), 68 (“Do not forget to leave
the key […]. PRAY for me—if you ever pRAY.”) and others.
Who’s Who in the Sublimelight
169
by dropping hints to them in close proximity. Jean Farlow almost names
Quilty (“Last time he told me a completely indecent story about his nephew.
It appears—”), and Nabokov twice cryptically alludes to John Ray, first just
before the “waterproof” passage (“Charlotte […] wanted to know if John
was coming. He was”) and again in the last line of Chapter 20 (“‘Hullo there,’
said John’s voice”).
59
Nabokov’s “most inimical reader” (272) is subjected to
some of the book’s most strenuous taunting when Humbert, in his account
of his final meeting with Lolita, simultaneously recalls Charlotte’s “water-
proof” and claims full artistic status and consciousness, a claim belied by Ray’s
manipulations.
Chapter 27 contains the scene in which Lolita walks in slow motion toward
Humbert’s gifts in the open suitcase, the author’s fourth “secret point.” This
crucial chapter opens with one of the book’s weirder and more perplexing
59. The arrival of “John’s voice” at the end of Chapter 20 leads to a pattern
of puns, allusions, echoes, and fingerprints pointing to McFate as ventriloquist
in Chapter 21. Nabokov follows up the aforementioned “rays of hope” and
“sunburst” (90) with echoes of Ray’s name in “brain,” “portrayed,” “admira-
tion,” “depraved,” and “razor,” and throughout Chapter 21 pointedly makes
Humbert repeat memorable words from the Foreword: “Mr. Clark’s decision,”
“this remarkable memoir,” “shocking surprise,” “a general lesson,” “dangerous
trends.” H.H. seeks “some general means to assert [himself] in a general way”
and, while echoing Ray, at the same time opposes Nabokov’s well-known
preference for the specific when he says “I am concerned with a general trend”
and “I can ignore the particular. I cannot ignore the general.” “Surprise” is
thrice repeated, as is “decide” following “decisions.” Humbert’s “educator”
echoes Ray’s “parents, social workers, educators” and Ray’s “No doubt, he is
horrible” and “As a case history, ‘Lolita’ will become, no doubt, a classic”
resonates in Humbert’s “the little table was ugly, no doubt.” “Case” makes two
appearances in tandem with the twice-repeated “razor” followed by the sly
authorial taunt at the chapter’s end: “Remarkable how difficult it is to conceal
things.” Between the closing reference to “John’s voice” (89) in Chapter 20
and the reflection that “in near relatives the faintest gastric gurgle has the same
‘voice’” (92) (Ray and Clark are cousins; Humbert calls Quilty his brother a
couple of pages before Mary Lore reveals H.H.’s brotherly tie with Gratiano),
Humbert makes the amusing claim to “have a small but distinct voice” (91).
Quilty’s fingerprints appear in “quality,” “qui,” “que,” “quoi,” “quand” (that
serviceable French!), “laquered,” “particular” (repeated), “quite,” “inquired,”
“coquettish,” and “quaint,” and the catalogue of capitalized terms beginning
with “C” (Camping, Campus, Canada, etc.) recalls once again the triple c’s of
Clarence Choate Clark’s initials on the novel’s opening page.
170
Forum
images,
60
the “gratuitous” nature of which becomes clear upon close inspec-
tion. In addition to shaping Humbert’s conscious thoughts, Ray is giving him
nightmares: “Still in Parkington. Finally, I did achieve an hour’s slumber—
from which I was aroused by gratuitous and horribly exhausting congress with
a small hairy hermaphrodite, a total stranger.”
61
The icing on the subliminal
cake of Ray’s shadowgraph signature and the echo of his name in “stranger” is
the subtle and witty use of “congress” to allude to the Washington location of
Clarence Clark’s bar, while “horribly” echoes the Foreword (“he is horrible”)
and the first syllable of “exhausting” puns on “X-ray.” We hear the triple
initials of Quilty’s lawyerly incarnation when hag Holmes asks Humbert if he
would “care to meet the camp counselors” and the c’s pop up repeatedly in
room 342 of The Enchanted Hunters in the phrases “changed, checked the pill
vial in my coat,” “Copper-colored, charming,” and “cheapest of cheap cuties.”
In a typical nudge, Nabokov prompts our scrutiny of the secret point with
Lo’s “peering” at the “treasure box” and Humbert’s wondering if there was
“something wrong” with her vision. In the immediate context of Lolita’s slow-
motion walk, one finds the fingerprints of Ray and Quilty in “embrace,” “cut,”
“great,” “gray,” “raised,” “quite,” “radiant,” and “quidquam,”
62
and on the
same page, in the flourish of a minor climax, we have this teasing dialogue:
60. This passage has been the object of extensive debate on NABOKV-L.
For a sampling, consult the Table of Contents in the archives for November,
1999, passim.
61. “GRATuItouS and horribly exhausting congRess with A small hairY
hermaPhroDite”—See note 39 above.
62. The concentration of Ray and Cue’s fingerprints in this chapter is re-
markable. In addition to those already cited in the slow-motion scene (and if
one catches yet another of Nabokov’s hints, slowing one’s pronunciation in
time with Lolita’s walk, Ray’s name reverberates insistently in their stressed
syllables), one hears Ray’s name in “stranger,” “respiration,” “erased,” “prey,”
“deliberation,” “rapist,” “afraid,” “embrace,” “rain,” “deliberation” (again),
“raised,” “saturate,” “brakes,” “strangers,” “exasperating,” “concentrated,”
“drained,” “graded,” “gratefully,” “raindrop,” “grave,” “crayfish,” “crazy,”
“great,” “strange” (repeated), “restraint,” “frame,” “deranged,” “deliberation,”
“grape-blood,” and “frail.” Subliminal references to Quilty in the letters “q”
and “cu” include “occurred,” “quite” (repeated several times), “curiosity,”
“queue,” “accursed,” “miraculously,” “particular,” “curve,” “squinting,”
“quote,” “squatting,” and “curls.” There are also of course direct allusions to
Quilty in “Camp Q, merry Camp Q,” “a broad-shouldered driver,” “Quilty,”
“lone diner,” and “writer fellow in the Dromes ad.”
Who’s Who in the Sublimelight
171
“What’s the katter with misses?” I muttered (word-control gone) into
her hair.
“If you must know,” she said, “you do it the wrong way.”
“Show, wight ray.”
“All in good time,” responded the spoonerette. (120)
Since “wight” means “creature,” the subliminal message of “Show, wight ray”
is that eventually John Ray’s presence in Lolita will become evident. Lo’s
“in good time” is heavily ironic given the confused calendar, however. Word-
control gone, indeed!
63
Suggestive allusions to time cluster around the fourth secret point and
implicate Ray as their source. These allusions build on the “Proust” motif
introduced explicitly by Humbert in Chapter 5 in the context of his scholarly
work on French literature, “the last volume of which was almost ready for
press by the time of my arrest” (16). Those readers who recall that the French
title of Proust’s masterpiece includes “temps perdu” will most keenly appreciate
the motif’s relevance to the three “lost days” of Lolita’s endgame. Humbert
alludes to the issue of temporal difficulties in brief Chapter 26 of Part I when
he mentions that his “calendar is getting confused” (109), anticipating a
similar observation at the end of Chapter 26 in Part II: “I notice I have some-
how mixed up two events” (263) (discussed later in this essay). Meanwhile
Humbert’s increasing impatience and preoccupation with time is a marked
feature of Chapter 27. He decides to arrive at Camp Q “earlier than [he] had
said,” seeks to avoid “delay,” tries to leave at 9:30 A.M. but is thwarted “by a
63. The spooneristic dialogue of Room 342 is prepared for a few pages
earlier in a conversation during the drive from Camp Q in which Humbert
tells Lo he has “missed” her; she says it “does not matter” and points out he
hasn’t “kissed [her] yet” (112). The re-reader noticing that “missed,” “matter,”
and “kissed” anticipate the spoonerisms may also feel a tickle in the ear when
Humbert, pumping Lo for camp news, says, “Talk Lo—don’t grunt, ” and she
asks him, “When did you fall for my mummy?” Humbert offers a vacuous
platitude: “Some day, Lo, you will understand many emotions and situations,
such as for example the harmony, the beauty of spiritual relationship.” Lolita
will have none of it: “‘Bah!’ said the cynical nymphet” (112). This dialogue
anticipates a similar exchange containing other subliminal references to Ray
in Part II’s Chapter 32 (discussed below) where Lolita, “with a grunt,” asks
Humbert where her “murdered mummy” is buried, and rebuffs his platitudi-
nous response: “‘Ray,’” said Lo for hurray” (286). The connection is tenuous
enough for Nabokov to be pretty sure most of us will miss it, so meanwhile we
get a shadowgraph of Ray’s name and an authorial taunt for not seeing it: “I
slowed down fRom A blind seventY to a purblind fifty” (112).
172
Forum
dead battery,” has to “endure for several minutes” hag Holmes’ inquisitive-
ness, comments that “time moves ahead of our fancies,” speeds in an effort
to reach Briceland, and when Lolita says she is penniless, tells her, “This is a
matter that will be mended in due time,” anticipating her response to his
“Show, wight ray”: “All in good time.” Nabokov draws our attention to the
connection between Ray’s power and lost time most pointedly immediately
after Humbert hits the brakes behind an “accursed truck” “stopped at a
crossing,” sending Lo “forward” (116). The pun on “Foreword” is almost
immediately repeated in company with a shadowgraph of Ray’s name (in
“already”) and yet another veiled allusion to Roland Pym: “Lo, whose lovely
prismatic entrails had already digested the sweetmeat, was looking forward
64
to a big meal.” Failing to get directions from “strangers,” Humbert gets “com-
plicated explanations, with geometrical gestures, geographical generalities and
strictly local clues (… then bear south after you hit the courthouse …)”
65
that
cause him to lose time, while Nabokov’s conspicuous alliteration and the
pointed reference to “local clues” offer signposts to the reader.
Nabokov combines subliminal subtlety and convoluted irony with great
finesse when he has Humbert allude (with characteristic incomprehension) to
Ray’s role: “As to me, although I had long become used to a kind of secondary
fate (McFate’s inept secretary, so to speak) pettily interfering with the boss’s
generous magnificent plan—to grind and grope through the avenues of Brice-
land was perhaps the most exasperating ordeal I had yet faced” (116). “Editor”
Ray, boss Nabokov’s “inept secretary,” not only causes Humbert to lose time
getting to the Enchanted Hunters, but also fails to correct “obvious solecisms”
in Humbert’s memoirs such as the confusion of the calendar in Chapter 26,
Part I (109), the mixed up events of Chapter 26, Part II (263), and the three
days Nabokov purposely “loses” in the temporal anomaly of the novel’s
endgame. The shadowgraph anagram “sercret Ray” in “secretary” and the pun
on “X-ray” in “exasperating” deftly undercut Humbert’s self-serving illusion
that boss Fate favors him. Other secrets beckon, but I cannot leave this chapter
without suggesting the possibility that the mistress of the cocker “swooning
on the floral carpet under [Lo’s] hand” is also Quilty’s mistress in disguise in
64. This play on “Foreword” is a repeat of a clue supplied by Beale as
“agent of fate” when he tells Humbert that Charlotte “had slipped on the
freshly watered asphalt and plunged forward whereas she should have flung
herself not forward but backward” (102). These puns and Charlotte’s death are
anticipated by the already noted plunge and echo at Hourglass Lake: “Char-
lotte flung herself forward with a great splash” (85).
65. “GeneRAliTIeS and strictly local clues ( … then beaR south After You
hit the courthouse …)”
Who’s Who in the Sublimelight
173
subliminal company with other members of the McFate cabal.
66
Lolita is firmly in Humbert’s clutches, “with absolutely nowhere else to go,”
as Part I of the novel concludes. Her captor has achieved his wildest wish, and
he sets out with Lolita on their “extensive travels all over the States,” reveling
in his good fortune. Meanwhile Humbert, seeming to enjoy an interval of
relative peace courtesy of McFate, gloats at others’ expense in Nabokov’s fifth
nerve center, Gaston Godin’s garret, while reviser Ray pulls the strings. In Part
II’s Chapter 6, Humbert ridicules Gaston in terms that reflect some of his own
failings and future entanglements with McFate and even presents Godin as a
grotesque travesty of the plump author, the supreme god in the book. Gaston
is “too self-centered and abstract to notice or suspect anything,” Humbert
says, picturing his enormous body in black (Humbert will wear black for
Quilty’s “execution”) and seating him staring at the chess board “as if it were
a corpse” (Quilty is not quite a corpse when H.H. sits by his bed at Pavor
Manor). Meanwhile, Nabokov plants subliminal references to Quilty and Ray
throughout the chapter.
67
Among the portraits in the garret hangs “Harold D.
Doublename” and Nijinsky, the former pointing to the novel’s many doubles,
pairs, and impersonators, not least among them Humbert Humbert, quilted
Quilty, Clarence Clark, Esq., and John Ray, Jr. Nijinsky’s portrait points again
to the page with the aforementioned overlooked key at Pavor Manor, where
wounded Quilty is compared to “old, gray, mad Nijinski” (302), and Gaston’s
“Mississe Taille Lore” with its waggish pun affords an early view of Elphin-
stone Hospital’s Mary Lore in fateful Chapter 22: a “very cheeky nurse with
overdeveloped gluteal parts and blazing black eyes—of Basque descent” (241).
Leaving Lolita at Chestnut Court, H.H. walks into town for a haircut and
into the heart of the sixth nerve of the novel where sly McFate foreshadows
inattentive Humbert’s future:
66. “The pink old fellow peeRed good-nAturedlY at Lo—still sQuatting,
listening in profile, lips parted, to what the dog’s mistress, an ancient lady
swathed in VIolet VeIls, wAs telliNg her from the depths of a cretonne easy
chair.” For more on the “easy chair,” see note 93 below.
67. Quilty’s traces include “security,” “question,” “curious,” “burlesque,”
“liqueurs,” “que,” “circumflex,” “techniques,” “Queen,” “unique,” the flagrant
“quilted,” and “queer.” Ray’s fingerprints are scattered throughout the chapter
in words like “tolerated,” “strain,” “decorated,” and “straight”; several
shadowgraphs of Ray’s name cluster near the “nerve center” proper, Gaston’s
garret. Gaston, Humbert says, would feed the boys chocolates “in the pRivAcY
of an oRientAllY furnished den in his basement, with amusing daggers and
pistols arRAYed on the moldy, rug-adorned walls among the camouflaged hot-
water pipes” (181).
174
Forum
In Kasbeam a very old barber gave me a very mediocre haircut: he bab-
bled of a baseball-playing son of his, and at every explodent, spat into my
neck, and every now and then wiped his glasses on my sheet-wrap, or
interrupted his tremulous scissor work to produce faded newspaper
clippings, and so inattentive was I that it came as a shock to realize as he
pointed to an easeled photograph among the ancient gray lotions, that
the mustached young ball player had been dead for the last thirty years.
(213)
In company with the fingerprints in “haircut” and “gray,” the “easeled photo-
graph” looks forward to the “easeled photograph of [Quilty]” H.H. finds on
Ivor’s desk in Ramsdale when he goes to the dentist’s office to pump him on
his nephew’s whereabouts (291). Further, “babbled” is a play on “bubble” (“a
big pink bubble”) and “explodent,” “spat,” and “sheet-wrap” are all echoed in
the language and action attendant on what H.H. later takes to be Quilty’s final
minutes as, blasting away with Chum, he watches Quilty “coughing and spit-
ting” and “blood-spattered […] wrap himself up in the chaotic bedclothes”
(304). As to his failing senses, H.H.’s delayed realization that “the mustached
young ball-player had been dead for the last thirty years” is a reversal of his
later assumption that mustached Quilty is not alive in his bedroom at Pavor
Manor.
Following the Kasbeam barber passage, another foreshadowing comes at the
bottom of the same page when H.H. sees “a strong and handsome young man
with a shock of black hair and blue eyes [… and] a sheepish grin” with “a
portable refrigerator” (a chiller), a preview of Dick Schiller (“Oh, Dick was
a lamb” [272]; “blue eyes, black hair” [273]). Then Humbert sees a young
woman, “far gone in the family way,” a stand-in for Dolly Schiller, the rapt
baby on the swing an image of naïve Dick, the jealous older child crying on
the grass a miniature of weeping H.H. (213). It is important to note that H.H.
seems unaware of the significance of these passages, which are calculated by
McFate to covertly presage Humbert’s future while simultaneously depicting
Humbert as infantile buffoon, a role he struggles to reserve for his com-
petitors. Meanwhile, the portable refrigerator not only carries an echo of
Ray’s name; it recalls for the reader an item in the list of sights visited a year
earlier: “ART: American Refrigerator Transit Company,” a witty Nabokovian
reference to the author’s labors in creating the novel and, since “ART” is both
acronym and shadowgraph, to the author’s letterplay.
68
68. Nabokov’s favorite novel, he says, was also his most difficult to write. “I
lacked the necessary information—that was the initial difficulty. I did not
know any American 12-year-old girls, and I did not know America; I had to
Who’s Who in the Sublimelight
175
In transitional Chapters 17–19 between the barbering in Kasbeam and
tennis at Champion, Nabokov’s next subliminal coordinate, Humbert seems
to sense more and more palpably McFate’s grip. Struggling but failing “to
break some pattern of fate […] obscurely […] enmesh[ing]” him (215), Hum-
bert finds himself engulfed by “torrents of rain” and dogged by the unshakable
Trapp in his “Aztec Red Convertible” (217). As is so often the case, fate travels
with the weather, whether in rain or another “sunburst” like the one that
prompts H.H. to stop for new sunglasses (shades of Roland Pym?). At the
same time Quilty “in his converted state” (the pun glossing his incarnation as
Clark) as both car man and bar man stops behind Humbert “at a café or bar
bearing the idiotic sign: The Bustle: A Deceitful Seatful” (218). Just as “sun-
burst” points back once more to Ray’s submerged identity as Roland Pym in
Who’s Who, The Bustle again anticipates the “bustling […] rumpy young
nurse” Mary Lore and her complicity in Lolita’s escape at Elphinstone Hospi-
tal. At the theatrical performance in Wace, H.H. again unwittingly makes
a veiled allusion to McFate’s theft of his story when he comments on the
supposed plagiarism of the play’s co-authors: “I remember thinking that this
idea of children-colors had been lifted by authors Clare Quilty and Vivian
Darkbloom from a passage in James Joyce” (221). When the triple c’s show up
again in “Campus Cream convertible” (227), we should not be surprised to
learn that “grays […] remained [Trapp/Quilty’s] favorite cryptochromism,”
given the nepotistic privilege accorded Ray by Clark.
69
Hence, the “pale dull
rainbow of paint shades” gives way to “such ghosts as Chrysler’s Shell Gray,
Chevrolet’s Thistle Gray, Dodge’s French Gray…” (228). John Ray’s jocular
“no ghosts walk” is thus true at this stage in a technical sense: these specters
have wheels.
Humbert is made patently ridiculous in his desperate attempt to cover his
humiliation in the flat tire episode (a comic scene in Quilty’s play) in which
Lolita gloriously closes ranks with McFate:
I pulled up—near a precipice. She folded her arms and put her foot on
the dashboard. I got out and examined the right rear wheel. The base of
its tire was sheepishly and hideously square. Trapp had stopped some
invent America and Lolita. […] The obtaining of such local ingredients as
would allow me to inject average ‘reality’ into the brew of individual fancy
proved […] difficult […]” (SO 26). He also had to make shadowgraphs. Gee,
what fun.
69. Quilty’s preference for gray cars as he stalks Humbert and John Ray’s
name itself suggest these cousins are antecedents of a third relative: Jakob
Gradus/Jack Gray of Pale Fire.
176
Forum
fifty yards behind us. His distant face formed a grease spot of mirth. This
was my chance. I started to walk towards him—with the brilliant idea of
asking him for a jack though I had one. He backed a little. I stubbed my
toe against a stone—and there was a sense of general laughter. Then a
tremendous truck loomed from behind Trapp and thundered by me—
and immediately after, I heard it utter a convulsive honk. Instinctively I
looked back—and saw my own car gently creeping away. I could make
out Lo ludicrously at the wheel, and the engine was certainly running—
though I remembered I had cut it but had not applied the emergency
brake; and during the brief space of throb-time that it took me to reach
the croaking machine which came to a standstill at last, it dawned upon
me that during the last two years little Lo had had ample time to pick up
the rudiments of driving. As I wrenched the door open, I was goddam
sure she had started the car to prevent me from walking up to Trapp. Her
trick proved useless, however, for even while I was pursuing her he had
made an energetic U-turn and was gone. (228–29)
That must have been an elf’s stone that H.H. stubbed his toe against, and there
is quite a group contributing to that “sense of general laughter.”
70
In this scene,
McFate pointedly casts Humbert as an oaf, mocking his vanity and his inept
effort at control by making him first describe and then absurdly deny with
breathtaking illogicality the efficacy of Lolita’s stratagem. It is also possible
that the lapse in logic itself performs the intentional function of drawing our
attention to the passage’s references to time: “the brief space of throb-time”;
“Lo had had ample time.”
Nabokov believes that art, far from being “simple” and “sincere,” is instead
“at its greatest […] fantastically deceitful and complex” (SO 32–33), and his
seventh “subliminal coordinate” with Lolita playing tennis combines images
of mimicry with the familiar markings of McFate’s game to illustrate the
“splendid insincerity”
71
of art. The opening passage of Part II’s Chapter 20
70. In addition to Lolita and Quilty, Ray lurks in the shadowgraphs “creep-
ing away” and “certainly” as well as in Humbert’s “brilliant idea of asking […]
for a jack though I had one.” Humbert meanwhile again echoes Ray’s Foreword
by repeating “sense” and “general” while dropping fingerprints of Cue and Ray
in “square,” “cut,” and “brake.”
71. Nabokov linked game strategy to literary strategy in a comment on
Poems and Problems. When Appel asked why he included chess problems in a
book with poems, he replied, “Because problems are the poetry of chess. They
demand the same virtues that characterize all worthwhile art: originality,
invention, harmony, conciseness, complexity, and splendid insincerity” (SO
Who’s Who in the Sublimelight
177
epitomizes the ease with which Nabokov disguises flagrant hints:
By permitting Lolita to study acting I had, fond fool, suffered her to
cultivate deceit. It now appeared that it had not been merely a matter of
learning the answers to such questions as what is the basic conflict in
“Hedda Gabler,” or where are the climaxes in “Love Under the Lindens,”
or to analyze the prevailing mood of “Cherry Orchard”; it was really a
matter of learning to betray me. How I deplored now the exercises in
sensual simulation that I had so often seen her go through in our Beards-
ley parlor when I would observe her from some strategic point while she,
like a hypnotic subject or a performer in a mystic rite, produced sophisti-
cated versions of infantile make-believe by going through […] mimetic
actions […]. (229–30)
While Lolita’s “exercises in sensual simulation” serve as practice for deceiving
Humbert, at the same time they function as metaphor for John Ray’s auda-
cious hoax (“sophisticated versions of infantile make believe”) and Nabokov’s
artistic challenge to the reader. Here the subtle allusions to Ray’s book “Do
the Senses Make Sense?” (“exercises in sensual simulation”) and profession
(“analyze,” “hypnotic subject”) combine with subliminal pointers to Ray in
shadowgraphs.
72
Indeed, Humbert’s reflections on how Lolita wove “delicate
spells […] in the dreamy performance of her enchantments” resonate with
Nabokov’s own views of the art of fiction: “great novels are great fairy tales”
(LL 2) and “a great writer is always a great enchanter” (LL 5). Immediately
following his smug reflections on his superiority to Gaston, his “confused
adversary” in chess, Humbert’s gushingly emotional reading of Lolita playing
tennis illustrates Nabokov’s characterization of the “minor” reader’s reliance
on the heart, rather than the brain and the spine:
73
“on that particular day
[…] on that admirable court
74
[…] I felt I could rest from the nightmare of
unknown betrayals within the innocence of her style, of her soul, of her essen-
tial grace” (233).
Just as Lolita disguises her will to win in order to be free of Humbert, Lolita
gracefully conceals its deceitfulness from any reader taken in by an assumed
160–61). See note 9 above.
72. “oR to AnalYze,” “RAllY,” “betRAY,” “ouR BeArdsleY,” and “perform-
eR in A mYstic rite.”
73. It is these organs Nabokov insisted the good reader is to rely on when
reading “an artist’s book,” adding that “the heart is a remarkably stupid
reader” (SO 41).
74. The admirable quality of the court makes the identification of the “in-
quisitive butterfly” (234) fairly certain. See notes 43 and 44 above.
178
Forum
“innocence of […] style.” If the “inquisitive butterfly” that passes between
Humbert and his fair partner is an airy stand-in for the heaviest of the McFate
cabal, so too does the Roman-nosed gentleman behind the desk of the Cham-
pion Hotel “with a very obscure past that might reward investigation” seem a
likely Nabokov cameo. “A fake call” diverts H.H. while Lolita plays doubles
with Bill, Fay, and Quilty (235). Then as Quilty disappears, McFate mercilessly
mocks H.H. in the following lines that simultaneously evoke Ray’s surname in
the forced repetition of “really” and Ray’s fingerprint (“fragrant”), recall Ray’s
Foreword (“he is abject”), point up Clare Quilty’s adroit ascension in a pun
(“clarification”), and foreshadow the manner in which H.H. is greeted by
lawyer Windmuller in Chapter 33 (“with a very slow, very enveloping, strong,
searching grip” [290]):
Before returning to the hotel, I ushered her into a little alley half-smoth-
ered with fragrant shrubs, with flowers like smoke, and was about to
burst into ripe sobs and plead with her in the most abject manner for
clarification, no matter how meretricious, of the slow awfulness envelop-
ing me, when we found ourselves behind the convulsed Mead twosome
[…] we had come at the end of their private joke. It really did not matter.
Speaking as if it really did not really matter […] Lolita said she would
like to change into her bathing things […]. It was a gorgeous day. Lolita!
(236)
With Bill and Fay’s laughter ringing in his ears, it is “ad out” for Humbert,
who, with many more defeats to come, will soon have occasion to reflect rue-
fully on another “double game” Lolita plays at Elphinstone on Independence
Day.
In Nabokov’s eighth secret point, the hospital at Elphinstone, subliminal
references to John Ray cluster as thickly about the characters as do the
“millers” swarming around the motel’s “No Vacancy” sign.
75
In a general
way, Nabokov prolongs the private joke shared by “the convulsed Mead two-
some” after the tennis game at Champion as Humbert attempts to rationalize
McFate’s patterns:
75. “MRs. HAYs” runs the motel; Lo’s whimpering is “dReArY”; H.H.
takes her temperature “oRAllY” and looks up a formula he “foRtunAtelY” had
“afteR lAboriouslY” converting the scale to centigrade. Humbert gives Lo’s age
as “pRActicallY sixteen” to “an unsmiling blond bitch of a secRetArY” before
being “dReAdfullY” rude to Mary Lore. Mary drops a “tRAY” (and Clark’s
initials) with “a quick crash on a chair in the corridor,” nods “diRectionAllY,”
and quips, reminding the reader of Ray’s facility in French (one recalls his use
of “tendresse” in the Foreword): “my pappy can paRlAY-voo as well as yours.”
Who’s Who in the Sublimelight
179
After all—well really … After all, gentlemen, it was becoming abundantly
clear that all those identical detectives in prismatically changing cars
were figments of my persecution mania, recurrent images based on
coincidence and chance resemblance. Soyons logiques, crowed the cocky
Gallic part of my brain—and proceeded to rout the notion of a Lolita-
maddened salesman or comedy gangster, with stooges, persecuting me,
and hoaxing me, and otherwise taking riotous advantage of my strange
relations with the law. (238)
Even as Humbert tries to hum his panic away, Quilty’s fingerprints and echoes
and shadowgraphs of Ray’s name lurk in his language, along with teasing hints
of hidden clues (“it was becoming abundantly clear,” “recurrent images based
on coincidence and chance resemblance,” “hoaxing,” “my strange relations
with the law”). Humbert’s antipathy toward Mary Lore is well-justified: with
the “M” discarded, her name is an anagram for “Ray role,” and her Basque
father sports a Ph.D. as a shadowgraph in his profession (“imported shepherd,
a trainer of sheep dogs”). Reinforcing Ray’s fingerprints are artful echoes of
Ray’s Foreword, as witness H.H.’s twice repeated “no doubt,” the phrases
“made sense,” “as any American parent would,” and his apology to the hospital
“in general.” “Ponderosa Lodge” echoes the Foreword’s “ponderously capri-
cious,” and Ray’s Ph.D. again glows as a shadowgraph in the “phony armorial
design” on the crumpled envelope Humbert inspects.
In a passage particularly rich with dramatic irony and pointers to the
McFate conspiracy, Humbert muses bitterly:
Poor Bluebeard. Those brutal brothers. Es-ce que tu ne m’aimes plus, ma
Carmen? She never had. At the moment I knew my love was as hopeless
as ever—and I also knew the two girls were conspirators, plotting in
Basque, or Zemfirian, against my hopeless love. I shall go further and say
that Lo was playing a double game since she was also fooling sentimental
Mary whom she had told, I suppose, that she wanted to dwell with her
fun-loving young uncle and not with cruel melancholy me. And another
nurse whom I never identified, and the village idiot who carted cots and
coffins into the elevator, and the idiotic green love birds in a cage in the
waiting room—all were in the plot, the sordid plot. I suppose Mary
thought comedy father Professor Humbertoldi was interfering with the
romance between Dolores and her father-substitute, roly-poly Romeo
(for you were rather lardy, you know, Rom, despite all that “snow” and
“joy juice”). (243–44; Nabokov’s italics)
As “Bluebeard” stands in for Humbert, so the “brutal brothers” point to ano-
ther family alliance, that between Quilty/Clark and John Ray. In addition to
180
Forum
Quilty’s fingerprints and several shadowgraphs of Ray’s name, Clarence
Choate Clark’s triple c’s click like casters under the cart with the cots and
coffins being loaded into the elevator, and the phrase “sordid plot” echoes
Windmuller’s “sordid business” as quoted by Ray in the Foreword. Besides
the betrayal Humbert sees in Lolita’s “double game,” her kinship with Mary
Lore is evident not only in their sisterly conspiracy against Humbert/Bluebeard
but in name as well, since “Lore” is embedded in “Dolores,” the name itself
an anagram of the Spanish for “two” (“dos”) plus “role.” Humbert’s sneering
nickname of the moment for Quilty, “roly-poly Romeo,” carries a chain of
puns: “roly” alludes to Roland (Pym) and the “rolled over”s of H.H.’s wres-
tling with Quilty; “poly” points to Poling (Prize); “Romeo” (and in the line
above it, “romance”) evokes the Roman nose behind the desk at the Cham-
pion Hotel. Finally, the epithet “cruel melancholy me” parallels Nabokov’s
auto-referential “fat me” in the Aubrey McFate anagram, an epithet also
evoked by “lardy.” About one thing Humbert is correct: “all [are] in the plot.”
We come now to a further consideration of the ninth “secret point”: “pale,
pregnant, beloved, irretrievable Dolly Schiller dying in Gray Star (the capital
town of the book).” Gray Star is by far the most complex of the ten subliminal
coordinates. I have already suggested that Nabokov’s out-of-phase placement
of Gray Star is a deliberate and complementary gesture toward other temporal
anomalies in the book. In his Foreword, Ray would have us take it as the
geographical location of Mrs. Schiller’s death, and Nabokov, as I have argued,
identifies it with Ray (“in Gray Star” = “gratis Ray”) and the Foreword’s
importance by calling it the book’s “capital town.” Again, because of the wide
distribution in the novel of the subliminal anagram “gratis Ray,” Gray Star is
not only a “point” in the Foreword but also a recurring motif and sign of Ray’s
active part in Humbert’s story. With Lolita’s successful escape with Quilty, the
stage is set for Ray to deliver the “moral apotheosis” he promises the reader in
the Foreword. Hence becomes evident a further hidden logic in the placement
of Gray Star ninth in Nabokov’s list: it is mainly between Elphinstone and
H.H.’s mountainside epiphany (secret points eight and ten) that Ray treats
Humbert as a mental case, steals, dissects, and reassembles his identity, and
contrives to bring about his ethical conversion. “Gray Star” is thus also a
playful allusion to gray eminence Ray’s being the hidden star of the show.
76
Meanwhile Nabokov uses mock-Proustian echoes of lost time to subtly
reinforce the anomalies of Humbert’s calendar while piling up allusions to
76. Ray’s overshadowing of Humbert is ironically alluded to when Nabo-
kov has Humbert refer to Miss Opposite’s porch “as if it were a stage and I the
star performer” (289).
Who’s Who in the Sublimelight
181
Ray’s operations in the text. Sitting with his gun in his raincoat pocket, Hum-
bert senses the absurdity of his targeting Riggs, and tells us, “I was losing my
time and my wits” (253). When a door different from the one Humbert “had
been staring at” opens “briskly, and amid a bevy of women students” “a total
stranger” appears who turns out to be Rigger instead of Riggs, Nabokov subtly
cements the link between Ray and temporal difficulties in Lolita. The forgotten
occasion on which Rigger bored Humbert “with his impressions of Switzer-
land at a tea party for parents” H.H. is “unable to place correctly in terms of
time” (191). Finally, Rigger’s parting with Humbert (“He would be seeing me”
[253]) has the ring of a portent.
77
Nabokov links Ray’s operations, the time motif, and the book as a whole
in Chapter 25 in connection with another of Humbert’s breakdowns. The
Proustian echo noted by Appel (430), “Dolorès Disparue,” usefully recalls
Humbert’s slip in Who’s Who (“disappeared” [32]), and applies here not only
to Dolores but to Humbert and the three “lost days”:
This book is about Lolita; and now that I have reached the part which
(had I not been forestalled by another internal combustion martyr)
might be called “Dolorès Disparue,” there would be little sense in ana-
lyzing the three empty years that followed. While a few pertinent points
have to be marked, the general impression I desire to convey is of a side
door crashing open in life’s full flight, and a rush of roaring black time
drowning with its whipping wind the cry of lone disaster. (253–54)
Nabokov cues us in this passage to Ray’s presence by the use of two of the
editor’s key words, “sense” and “general,” by his scrambled surname in
“martyr,” by the allusion to his profession in “analyzing,” and by the pun on
“star” in “disaster.” It is Humbert’s life and identity that will be drowned out,
replaced by memories “doctored” by psychoanalyst Ray, the three lost days
being alluded to in the “three empty years.” The overlapping of Ray’s identity
with Humbert’s, the conflation of their voices, and the shifting roles of
Humbert’s antagonists are covertly suggested in Humbert’s nightmares, in
which Lolita’s image appears “in strange and ludicrous disguises as Valeria or
77. The assemblage of Quilty’s friends at what appears to be a cast party at
Pavor Manor near the end of the novel includes figures that may have played
multiple roles in the plot against Humbert. If Rigger is Ray in disguise, he may
well be the “unidentified” record inspector in that group. Both “Rigger” and
“Riggs” rather obviously suggest deceptive manipulation such as Ray practices,
and one also recalls Humbert’s comment on Lo’s collectively “rigged up” life
(215). Like Rigger, Jean Farlow also takes her leave of Humbert hinting at a
reunion (104). See note 94 below and related discussion.
182
Forum
Charlotte, or a cross between them.” Humbert’s nightmares also contain
imagery that stands for the mutilation of his memoirs under Ray’s reading
lamp: “I would be entertained at tedious vivisecting parties.” Later, at the
Schillers’, Humbert is made to connect Ray’s operations to the book as a
whole: “I had merely dropped in on my way to Readsburg where I was to be
entertained by some friends and admirers.” Readsburg is of course the novel
itself, in which McFate “entertains” H.H.
78
McFate’s insidious insinuations
into the text are both implied and illustrated by a telling parallel: again one
recalls that in his Foreword, Ray opines that “had [H.H.] gone […] to a com-
petent psychopathologist, there would have been no disaster; but then, neither
would there have been this book.” Here is Humbert’s variation on the theme:
It is just possible that had I gone to a strong hypnotist he might have ex-
tracted from me and arrayed in a logical pattern certain chance memories
that I have threaded through my book with considerably more ostenta-
tion than they present themselves with to my mind even now when I
know what to seek in the past. (255)
In another of the book’s delightful little gems of dramatic irony, Humbert
follows up his Proustian allusion by remarking that he felt he “was merely
losing contact with reality,” and alludes to his retreat to a Quebec sanatorium
where he composed the poem that begins “Wanted, wanted: Dolores Haze,”
whose stanzas abound with covert allusions to Ray.
79
78. Dolinin points out that “Readsburg is the only toponym in the novel
whose lexical meaning Nabokov brings out in the Russian translation, where
he renames it “Lektoburg” (“Lolita in Russian” 329).
79. The poem would seem actually to have been authored by Ray. In addi-
tion to his familiar fingerprints in “craze,” “vair” (French for “gray”), “raise,”
“rain,” and “dream-gray,” “Gray Star” is echoed in “starlet,” “starling,” “star-
men,” and “stardust.” Even more obscurely, all thirteen stanzas of the poem
contain shadowgraphs and/or anagrams of Ray’s surname, apparent once the
reader makes a variety of transpositions or elisions in proximate words: In
stanza 1: “hundRed dAYs”; stanza 2: “WhY ARe”; stanza 3: “mY cAR”; stanza
4: “mY cARmen”; stanza 5: “ARe You”; stanza 6: “happY is gnARled”; stanza
7: “ARe You”; stanza 8: “opeRA/s’Y”; stanza 9: “hAiRY”; stanza 10: “theY
go—/In the RAin”; stanza 11: “theY ARe”; stanza 12: “dReAm graY”; stanza
13: “wheRe the weed decAYs.” Lines 3 and 4 of the second stanza are particu-
larly telling clues to Ray’s power over Humbert: “(I talk in a daze, I walk in a
maze, / I cannot get out, said the starling).” Alfred Appel’s gloss (432) on line 4
explains its connection to a caged bird in Sterne’s A Sentimental Journey and to
Nabokov’s account of the inspiration for Lolita in his afterword, the story of an
Who’s Who in the Sublimelight
183
Ray’s eclipsing of Humbert is encapsulated in two episodes of Chapter 26:
the mysterious case of Jack Humbertson’s appearance in Humbert’s hotel
room and Humbert’s search in the Briceland library archives for an old Gazette
photograph of himself. With unflagging dramatic irony, Humbert introduces
the Humbertson episode: “One rather mysterious spree that had interesting
repercussions I must notice. I had abandoned the search: the fiend was either
in Tartary or burning away in my cerebellum”
80
(excellent guesses, though the
possibilities are simultaneous, not exclusive). At a loss to explain Humbertson,
“whom neither Rita nor [he] recalled having ever seen” before, Humbert
quips: “Five glasses had been used, which, in the way of clues, was an em-
barrassment of riches.” Has young Humbertson been drinking with McFate?
Permanently amnesic, his “(worthless) identity” “purloined” (such a poetic
verb!), “isolated from his personal past,” Humbertson, as his “tastelessly
dubbed” name implies, is a bizarre embodiment of Humbert’s stolen memoirs,
his first name, Jack, pointing to his “second father,” John Ray. Humbert’s
awakening to find Jack Humbertson in his hotel room parallels his Parkington
experience in Chapter 27 of Part I, when he was awakened by an encounter
with that other “total stranger,” the “small hairy hermaphrodite.”
Also in Briceland, Humbert seeks “retrievable time” in the form of an old
photograph taken of him at The Enchanted Hunters, and as he does so, Ray
infects Humbert’s thoughts and language, subliminally altering both his
“expression” and the object of his quest:
81
Passionately I hoped to find preserved the portrait of the artist as a
younger brute. An innocent camera catching me on my dark way to
Lolita’s bed—what a magnet for Mnemosyne! I cannot well explain the
true nature of that urge of mine. It was allied, I suppose, to that swooning
curiosity which impels one to examine with a magnifying glass bleak little
ape coaxed by a scientist to produce a sketch depicting “the bars of the poor
creature’s cage.” More is at work here, however. The “maze” of line 3 juxta-
posed with the anagram of “rats” in “starling” suggests Ray’s power over
Humbert is analogous to the absolute dominance the researcher holds over his
subject animals. This connection is reinforced in stanza 5 where the line “And
I, in my corner, snarlin’” echoes the Beardsley interview in which Ray imper-
sonates Pratt and Humbert offers the self-characterization “a cornered old rat”
(196).
80. “either in TaRtArY or buRning AwaY in my cerebellum”
81. “I hoped to find the portrait of […] aRtist As a Y[…]”; “An innocent
camera catching […] daRk wAY” ; “curiosity which impels one to examine
with a magnifying glass bleak little figures— […] pRacticAllY.”
184
Forum
figures—still life practically, and everybody about to throw up—at an
early morning execution, and the patient’s expression impossible to make
out in the print. (262)
While searching in the library archives for the photograph, H.H. comes across
a quotation of a line of Quilty’s with a subliminal toast to Ray’s cleverness:
“Wine, wine, wine, quipped the author of Dark Age who refused to be photo-
graphed, may suit a Persian bubble bird, but I say give me rain, rain, rain on
the shingle roof for roses and inspiration every time” (262). Thanks to Ray’s
treatment of his patient, Humbert’s passionate search for his image yields only
disappointment: “nothing of myself could I make out,” he remarks. The
photograph, with its “spectral shoulder” displacing H.H.’s “portrait,” serves as
another metaphor of McFate’s appropriation of H.H.’s story, a comically
Proustian image of lost time. As already noted, Chapter 26 concludes with
Humbert noticing he has “mixed up two events,” a confusion that recalls his
“calendar […] getting confused” in Chapter 26 of Part I. Pointed references to
lost time in the concluding chapters of the book blaze a trail to the crucial
mention of “fifty-six days” on its penultimate page: John Farlow writes that
“he would have no time henceforth” for Humbert’s affairs (266); on his way to
Coalmont, Humbert has “no time to spare” (267); Humbert says he leaves
Lawn Street “[f]eeling I was losing my time” (289); and on his way to Ivor
Quilty’s office he declines discussion of “the mnemonics of physiognomiza-
tion,” having “no time right now” (290).
Chapter 27, in which Humbert receives the letter from Lolita on September
22, 1952, is notably heavy with veiled allusions to McFate’s project. Speaking
of his letterbox, Humbert makes an observation that encapsulates McFate’s
scheme: “Several times already, a trick of harlequin light that fell through the
glass upon an alien handwriting had twisted it into a semblance of Lolita’s
script causing me to almost collapse as I leant against an adjacent urn, almost
my own” (263). The shadowgraph of Ray’s name in “already,” the evocation of
Quilty in “harlequin” and of Ray’s “reading lamp” in “light,” the “alien hand-
writing […] twisted into a semblance of Lolita’s script,” “collapse” prefiguring
Humbert’s limp capitulation at the novel’s end, and the foretaste of death in
the “urn, almost my own” all carry heavy dramatic irony. Similar irony marks
Humbert’s reflections a few lines farther on when he remarks that
indeed, it may well be that the very attraction immaturity has for me lies
not so much in the limpidity of pure young forbidden fairy child beauty
as in the security of a situation where infinite perfections fill the gap
between the little given and the great promised—the great rosegray
never-to-be-had.
Who’s Who in the Sublimelight
185
Humbert cannot possibly divine, as the reader can, that his “security” is in fact
imprisonment in Ray’s text, and that Nabokov’s “infinite perfections” (the
jewels of the text) fill the “gap” between the “little given” (H.H.’s memoirs as
Ray’s raw material) and “the great promised” (the finished novel, complete
with “moral apotheosis”). That Ray is the instrument, Nabokov once more
signals with a key shadowgraph.
82
Spying on what he imagines are “half-naked
nymphet[s],” pressing himself against “the railing of a throbbing balcony,”
Humbert says his desire would be “ready to take off […] did take off,” and he
“sometimes won the race between [his] fancy and nature’s reality,” except
when the “lighted image” would change, his fantasy displaced by “an obese
partly clad man
83
reading the paper.” There can be little doubt that H.H.’s pain
which “began when chance entered the fray” stems from the same source as
the vivisections in his nightmares described in Chapter 25. Reference to Ray’s
Foreword with its ethical emphasis is all but explicit when Humbert cites “the
radiant foreglimpse, the promise of reality, a promise not only to be simulated
seductively but also to be nobly held.” In another sense entirely from the one
he intends, Humbert’s fancy has indeed been “both Proustianized and Pro-
crusteanized”:
for that particular morning, late in September 1952, as I had come down
to grope for my mail, the dapper and bilious janitor with whom I was on
execrable terms started to complain that a man who had seen Rita home
recently had been “sick like a dog” on the front steps. In the process of
listening to him and tipping him, and then listening to a revised and
politer version of the incident, I had the impression that one of the two
letters which that blessed mail brought was from Rita’s mother, a crazy
little woman […]. (264–65)
The similarity of “janitor” to “junior,” the familiar pun on “X” in “execrable,”
and the telltale “pol” in “polite” all point to Ray, as does the parallel between
82. “the GReAT promISed—the great rosegRAY never-to-be had”
83. One cannot help but wonder: could this be yet another glimpse of the
portly author operating in tandem with Ray? A similar race is lost in Part I’s
Chapter 5 in company with the explicit introduction of the “Proustian theme”
(16), the statement that “the idea of time plays such a magic part in the
matter” (17), and insistent echoes of Ray’s Foreword (see note 27 above): “the
vision acquired an especially keen charm that made me race with all speed
toward my lone GRATIfication. But abruptly, fiendiShly, the tendeR pAttern
of nuditY I had adored would be transformed into the disgusting lamp-lit bare
arm of a man in his underclothes reading his paper […]” (20).
186
Forum
the janitor’s “revised and politer version” and Humbert’s heavily edited mem-
oirs, stretched to fit the rack of Ray’s scheme.
Nabokov gives subliminal credit to Ray for the authorship of much of
Humbert’s last scene with Lolita. Not only does Chapter 29 echo Ray’s
name throughout,
84
but multiple allusions to his prize-winning book “Do the
Senses Make Sense?” serve as covert plugs for it.
85
After Lo softly tells Humbert
Quilty’s name, Nabokov reminds us of his third secret point (“Waterproof”),
registers Ray’s control of Humbert’s thoughts (“cross my consciousness”),
(“I too, had known it, without knowing it, all along”), echoes Ray’s Foreword
(“shock […] surprise”), evokes Quilty’s name (“Quietly”),
86
and allows Hum-
bert to invite the reader to share his delusional self-satisfaction:
Waterproof. Why did a flash from Hourglass Lake cross my conscious-
ness? I, too, had known it, without knowing it, all along. There was no
shock, no surprise. Quietly the fusion took place, and everything fell into
order, into the pattern of branches that I have woven throughout this
memoir with the express purpose of having the ripe fruit fall at the right
moment; yes, with the express and perverse purpose of rendering—she
was talking but I sat melting in my golden peace—of rendering that
golden and monstrous peace through the satisfaction of logical recog-
nition, which my most inimical reader should experience now.
As “an afterwork radio” sings “of folly and fate,” Nabokov mocks Hum-
bert’s most fervent protestations of true love by crediting Ray with their com-
position. In a novel twist, he adds to Ray’s subliminal signature and the triple
c’s of Clarence Choate Clark’s initials an auditory pun in the last syllable of a
line from Mérimée
87
and has Humbert propose the home states of Dolores
Quine and Roland Pym as potential hideaways:
I insist the world know how much I loved my Lolita, this [Nabokov’s
italics] Lolita, pale and polluted, and big with another’s child, but still
84. The echoes include “vibrated,” “duration,” “stranger,” “strangely” (re-
peated), “raking,” “great” (repeated four times), “raise,” “crazy” (repeated
three times), “gray” (repeated), “rainy,” “range,” “strange” (repeated three
times), “unrestrained,” “betrayed” (repeated three times), “gracefully,”
“grave,” “disintegrated,” “arrange,” “radio,” “raising,” and “radiant.”
85. These references include “re-nonsense,” “sensible” (repeated), “sensa-
tional” (repeated), and the very pointed “That made sense.”
86. See note 33 above for Proffer’s remark.
87. Appel’s gloss points out the connection between “quelque part” here
and “Quelquepart Island” from the “paper chase” (442). See also note 58.
Who’s Who in the Sublimelight
187
gray-eyed, still sooty-lashed, still auburn and almond, still Carmencita,
still mine; Changeons de vie, ma Carmen, allons vivre quelque part où nous
ne serons jamais séparés; Ohio? The wilds of Massachusetts? (278)
As the chapter concludes, Humbert invokes Clark, Windmuller, and Ray in
his assurance to Lo that “a lawyer would send a full account of the financial
situation later; it was rosy”
88
and in his reference to “the formal agreement
with the authorities,” bearing further witness to Ray’s scheme.
Though short, Chapters 31 and 32 hold marked and concentrated evidence
of Ray’s voice blending with Humbert’s as Ray continues to develop Hum-
bert’s “moral apotheosis.” In Chapter 31, H.H. reviews his “case” and says he
now sees himself and his love “with the utmost simplicity and clarity.” Having
failed to find a spiritual remedy when consulting a priest, H.H. concludes
the misery he feels for having deprived Lolita of her childhood can only be
“treated” through the “melancholy and very local palliative of articulate art,”
again recalling Ray’s suggestion that H.H.’s failure to seek treatment “in the
fatal summer of 1947” resulted in disaster and its aftermath, H.H.’s great book.
The couplet with which H.H. ends the chapter with its allusion to “moral
sense” echoes Ray’s ethical emphasis at the end of his Foreword, and in addi-
tion to the parallel in subject matter, Humbert’s vocabulary closely mimics
Ray’s.
89
In Chapter 32, Humbert continues to parrot Ray in both language and
subject matter, while lacerating himself with guilt and reinforcing earlier
indicators of Ray’s role in the narrative.
90
The blatant reference to Ray dis-
guised as slang which Lolita throws at H.H. after his platitudinous advice
about “triumphing in [her] mind over the idea of death” (“‘Ray,’ said Lo for
hurray” [286]) harmonizes with the earlier description of H.H. as “Ray-like”
in Part I’s Chapter 11 and the “wight ray” of H.H.’s spooneristic dialogue in
Lolita’s slow-motion passage. Finally, the mention of the cemetery where
88. “lateR; it wAs rosY”
89. Echoes include “confession,” “sense,” “simple,” “old-fashioned,”
“nothing,” “great,” “art,” “misery,” “sin,” “tenderness,” “case,” “transcend,”
“girl-child,” and “maniac.”
90. Whereas Ray spoke of “two hypnotic eyes,” “dangerous trends,” “po-
tent evils,” and “a safer world,” Humbert uses the phrases “two eyes,” “dan-
gerous children in an outside world,” and “a world of total evil.” Ray’s “a
cynic may say” becomes Humbert’s “the coarse reader may say,” and Ray’s
“functional,” “child,” “despair,” “parents,” “desperate,” “tendresse,” “attrac-
tiveness,” and “magic” are all repeated exactly or with only minor variations by
Humbert. Ray’s familiar fingerprints in Chapter 32 include “grade,” “frustra-
tion,” “raised,” “gray,” “operation,” “radiance,” “stranger,” “railway,” “Ray,”
“hurray,” and “great.”
188
Forum
Charlotte is buried points yet again to Ray’s quip on page 4: “The caretakers
of the various cemeteries involved report that no ghosts walk,” a connection
reinforced on the next page by an uncorrected solecism when Humbert notes
that “G. Edward Grammar […] had just been arrayed on a charge of murder-
ing his […] wife […].”
91
Humbert also provides us with helpful details: the
“case came to light” after “two policemen” observed Mrs. Grammar’s car
speeding “crazily” before sideswiping a “pole.”
Meanwhile Nabokov has developed a context for Quilty’s resurrection and
Dolly’s death in Gray Star. Throughout Lolita one finds many instances of
survival and recovery, from Beale’s seventy-nine-year-old father recovering
from a heart attack on Miss Opposite’s lawn to “game Colonel Lacour,” et al.,
to big Frank who “had been blown through a wall overseas” to veterans one-
armed Bill and deaf Dick at the Schillers. Annabel is in a sense resurrected or
reincarnated in Lolita, H.H.’s burned diary briefly materializes as a “puny,
unfledged phoenix,” Charlotte “rises from her grave” as Dolly smokes,
Humbert (thanks to Ray) undergoes a “moral apotheosis,” Clare Quilty is
reincarnated as Clarence Clark, Esq., and “pale, pregnant, beloved, irretriev-
able Dolly Schiller” who dies in Gray Star rises to immortality in the “refuge
of art.” Foreshadowings of Quilty’s reincarnation appear in the neon coffee
pot already mentioned (“emerald resurrection” [282]), and again when,
accompanied by an “aster-like flower” sprouting from a crack in the sidewalk,
he piggybacks on Miss Opposite’s revival on Lawn Street: “Quietly resurrected”
(289). In the same paragraph, H.H. dismembers a red parking ticket, a stand-
in for Quilty, before driving in a Proustian rush (“I was losing my time”) to a
downtown hotel in the next. At the hotel where H.H. meets Mrs. Chatfield,
“pearl-gray” and “gray” and “curiosity” appear as additional knots linking Ray
and Cue to the resurrection motif. As has been the case throughout the novel,
Humbert’s wretched gains evaporate under Ray’s controlling hand.
Both on the eve and the day of his supposed victory over Quilty, Nabokov
ensures the principal humiliation is Humbert’s. Despite Quilty’s “strange
feminine manner,” admission of impotence, and protracted sufferings, a
steady stream of mock-Freudian double entendres ridicules Humbert’s role and
image as executioner. A “curiously hooded bridge sheath[s]” Humbert (292),
and Chum’s first discharge makes a “feeble and juvenile sound,” the bullet
seeming merely to trickle into the rug (297). “Hood” and “sheath” are verna-
cular for “condom,” implying that Humbert is really, well, just a “prick,” a
91. Appel glosses the pun but misses its import: “By saying that Ed had
been arrayed, instead of arraigned, H.H. punningly describes the imposing
display” (445).
Who’s Who in the Sublimelight
189
backfire of the earlier “Réveillez-vous, Laqueue, il est temps de mourir!” thrown
mentally at Quilty as H.H. walks to Ivor’s office (290).
92
The weapon “felt
limp and clumsy in my hand,” Humbert says, prompting our recollection of
his earlier facetious reminder that “a pistol is the Freudian symbol of the Ur-
father’s central forelimb” (216) and his fantasy at the Schillers’: “I […] pulled
the pistol’s foreskin back, and then enjoyed the orgasm of the crushed trigger:
I was always a good little follower of the Viennese medicine man” (274). Once
the shooting is over, Humbert emerges from a dazed sense that Charlotte is
“sick in bed.” He becomes aware that he is holding a slipper (an image that
evokes Harold Haze’s foot fetish and, again, the Pym credit Scrambled Hus-
bands) and sitting on the symbolic pistol, a less than heroic pose for one taking
vengeance on the “subhuman trickster who had sodomized [his] darling”
(295).
The gap between Humbert’s limited awareness and the confidence of the
McFate conspirators is accented in the final scene at Pavor Manor as gloomy
Humbert encounters several of the novel’s cast “cheerfully drinking Quilty’s
liquor” (304). Burdened with McFate’s oppression, Humbert follows the
sound of “a medley of voices” and “radio music” down the stairs, and sol-
emnly declares, “I have just killed Clare Quilty.” Among the characters he fails
to impress is “a fat man in an easy chair” (who might well be the author
93
filling another cameo in a prophetic image) and a cheerful group he earlier
imagines as Quilty’s “henchmen and whores” (292). The gathering rather
resembles an informal cast party, the participants suggestively possessing
characteristics that fit them for supporting roles in the “ingenious play” staged
by Quilty for Humbert. The “two dark-haired pale young beauties, sisters no
doubt, big one and small one (almost a child)” on the davenport might have
played Charlotte and young Lolita, the younger one’s “bright something about
her white neck” recalling H.H.’s “spring rain gift” to Lolita “which gemmed
her throat” as they set out on their second trip west (208); Tony’s “sapphire-
blue eyes” and florid face resemble Dick Schiller’s “arctic-blue eyes” and
“ruddy cheeks” (273); the “faded blonde” in the bar may well have played both
92. Proffer glosses H.H.’s line: “A well-intentioned double entendre which
in not very polite Parisian circles translates as: ‘Get up, prick, it’s time to die.’
—Of course, “to die” means to have an orgasm” (145).
93. Nabokov told Robert Hughes in 1965: “One of the reasons I live in
Montreux is because I find the view from my easy chair wonderfully soothing
[…].” In response to Hughes’ “Where is the easy chair?” Nabokov replied:
“The easy chair is in the other room, in my study. It was a metaphor, after all:
the easy chair is the entire hotel, the garden, everything” (SO 56). See also note
66 above.
190
Forum
the “unsmiling blonde bitch of a secretary” at Elphinstone Hospital (240)
and Ivor Quilty’s nurse, “a skeleton-thin, faded girl, with the tragic eyes of
unsuccessful blondes” (292). Might the “woman in slacks” who offers Hum-
bert a beer “from afar” have played Jean Farlow who “wore either slacks […]
or […] skirts”?
94
Eeriest of all, the “unidentified man rising in a corner where
he had been crouching to inspect some records”
95
seems a spectral prevision of
John Ray, soon to have Humbert’s memoir under his reading lamp, especially
since his ambiguous response to Tony’s “he has killed Cue” has the ring of a
collective threat: “I guess we all should do it to him [meaning Quilty or H.H.?]
some day.” If that is Ray talking, his indeterminate “some day” might well
betoken the less than meticulous handling of time in the novel, especially since
the phrase is juxtaposed with Tony’s “We can’t wait for him much longer if
we want to go to that game”—a game to be played in Readsburg, no doubt,
where Humbert earlier told the Schillers he “was to be entertained by some
friends and admirers.” Again, if Readsburg is the novel itself, the “game”
recommences whenever one opens the book.
Nabokov calls the last nerve of the novel “the tinkling sounds of the valley
town coming up the mountain trail (on which I caught the first known female
of Lycaeides sublivens Nabokov),” thus indicating the real-life source of the
scene of Humbert’s epiphany, the emotional climax of the book, and the
novel’s most deceitful and splendidly insincere passage.
96
H.H. evokes “a last
mirage of wonder and hopelessness”—his memory, he says, of his experience
some three years before on a “lofty slope” overlooking a valley. Humbert
remembers an attack of nausea on a mountain road. After retching violently,
94. Jean’s characteristic attire is mentioned just before Humbert records
her final words to him, words that seem prophetic in retrospect: “Perhaps
somewhere, some day, at a less miserable time, we may see each other again.”
Humbert’s parenthesis picks up and stresses the time motif: “(Jean, whatever,
wherever you are, in minus time-space or plus soul-time, forgive me all this,
parenthesis included)” (104–5).
95. Compare Quilty’s remarks during an anonymous telephone call to
Humbert in Nabokov’s screenplay: “You are classified in our files as a white
widowed male. Are you prepared to give our investigator a report on your
present sex life, if any?” (167).
96. Appel avers that “[u]ntil almost the end of Lolita, Humbert’s fullest
expressions of ‘guilt’ and ‘grief’ are qualified, if not undercut completely” (lix),
but that the passage in which Humbert expresses the “realization of the loss
suffered not by him but by Lolita (pp. 307–8) […] is in no way undercut by
parody or qualified by irony” (lxiv). This is to see the splendor but overlook
the insincerity.
Who’s Who in the Sublimelight
191
in the “detached warmth of a pale-blue afternoon in late summer,” Humbert
says he “rested a while” near some “withered roadside weeds” while in the sky
a “very light cloud was opening its arms and moving toward a slightly more
substantial one.” Approaching “the friendly abyss,” he says, he “grew aware
of a melodious unity of sounds rising like vapor from a small mining town”
and saw “red and gray roofs, […] a serpentine stream, […] the rich, ore-like
glitter of the city dump, and behind it all, great timbered mountains.” As he
stood there, what struck H.H. as even more compelling than the scene was the
“vapory vibration of accumulated sounds that never ceased for a moment, as it
rose to the lip of granite where [he] stood wiping [his] foul mouth,” sounds
coming from “the streets of the transparent town, with the women at home
and the men away.” Unlike the reader, whom Humbert addresses, Humbert
can hear only
the melody of children at play, nothing but that, and so limpid was the
air that within this vapor of blended voices, majestic and minute, remote
and magically near, frank and divinely enigmatic—one could hear now and
then, as if released, an almost articulate spurt of vivid laughter, or the
crack of a bat, or the clatter of a toy wagon, but it was all really too far for
the eye to distinguish any movement in the lightly etched streets. I stood
listening to that musical vibration from my lofty slope, to those flashes of
separate cries with a kind of demure murmur for background, and then I
knew that the hopelessly poignant thing was not Lolita’s absence from
my side, but the absence of her voice from that concord. (307–8)
Here, in what is surely one of the great prose passages in English, H.H. unfolds
his apparently profound and moving epiphany, but the teasing hints about
voices blending in the magical paradox of remote nearness, minute majesty,
and enigmatic frankness, the appeals to the ear
97
and the eye, the shadow-
graphs of Ray’s name, the fingerprint of Cue in “articulate,” and the echo of
97. Not least among the beauties of Nabokov’s prose in this magnificent
passage insisting on its “melodious unity of sounds” and its “vapory vibration
of accumulated sounds” “of one nature” are echoes not only of Ray’s name but
the rumbling “r,” the dental “t,” the short “i” vowel, and/or the sibilant of
“gratis” in words like “limpness,” “disappearance,” “precipice,” “withered,”
“its,” “rich,” “glitter,” “city,” “crisscrossing,” “quilt,” “timbered,” “lip,”
“granite,” “limpid,” “within,” “this,” “articulate,” “vivid,” “distinguish,”
“listening,” and so forth. One’s delight in this delicious effect is enhanced, of
course, when recalling Humbert’s opening description of what happens when
Lolita’s name is pronounced: “the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps
down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth” (9).
192
Forum
Ray’s name in “vibration” are only a few of the signals to the reader of the
deceitful artistic presence at work here.
Beneath the surface of Humbert’s touching prose, the epiphany paragraph
literally seethes with allusions to the McFate conspiracy, implicitly taunting the
reader with Ray’s book title: “Do the Senses Make Sense?” Waiting for the
“police and the ambulance people,” Humbert looks “forward to surrender […]
without doing anything to cooperate […] surrendering […] like a patient.” In
his reverie, the “ghost of an old mountain road” crosses “a brand new high-
way” bordered by “asters,” and in the distance he sees “roads crisscrossing the
crazy quilt of dark and pale fields.” Finally, to the reader’s eyes only, appears
Nabokov’s attribution of proxy power embedded in topographical grandeur.
98
Despite the eloquence of Humbert’s lofty revelation, he is not, I submit,
recalling an epiphanic experience of three years before. In creating the epi-
phany passage, Nabokov has Ray rewrite a far less majestic episode from
Chapter 28. The “great timbered mountains” forming the backdrop for the
valley scene are derived from a passage in which H.H. says that, after reading
Lolita’s letter, he fought “the mountains of agony it raised,” abandoned the
sleeping Rita and, on his way to Coalmont, used “a very old and very dirty gray
sweater” for target practice “in a speechless glade […] reached by a wood road
from the now remote highway,” filling it with “perforations” (267). Before
reaching the “small industrial community” of Coalmont, H.H. “rested for a
couple of hours” before rising and losing his breakfast, after which he “wiped
[his] mouth,” and then “with a blue block of ice for heart” made a call from a
phone booth with a talking door to hoarse Paul Schiller who directed H.H. to
Dick’s old address. There H.H. tells us he “interviewed a number of dejected
old people and two […] grubby nymphets […] thin-armed, barefoot little
girls,” meanwhile imagining “some lightly clad child” he might hold against
himself after the killing. He recalls other voices, not unfriendly, the last a
woman’s from a “wooden abyss in the floor,” directing him to Hunter Road.
The scene on Hunter Road, “miles away, in an even more dismal district,” is
“all dump and ditch, and wormy vegetable garden, and shack, and gray drizzle,
and red mud, and several smoking stacks in the distance.” Outside the Schill-
ers’ house, with “withered weeds” and “[s]ounds of hammering,” H.H. says, “I
sat quite still in my old car, old and frail, at the end of my journey, at my gray
goal, finis, my friends, finis, my fiends. The time was around two” (269).
The quiet moment in the car (a preview of his last limp moments in Mel-
moth), the bleak scenery with its roads and dump, its red and gray colors and
98. “behind it all, GReAT tImbered mountainS. But even bRighter thAn
those quietlY rejoicing colors […]”
Who’s Who in the Sublimelight
193
withered weeds, the nausea, the sounds of hammering and the various voices
—all of these dismal images from Coalmont Ray works into and romantically
transforms in the rhapsodic phrasing of the dream-like prose of the epiphany
paragraph. The “blue block of ice” of H.H.’s heart becomes a warm, “pale-blue
afternoon,” the “lightly clad child” and the “thin-armed” little girls become
the “very light cloud […] opening its arms,” the “wooden abyss” becomes a
“friendly abyss,” the “dump and ditch and wormy vegetable garden” become
“a serpentine stream, and the rich, ore-like glitter of the city dump,” and the
disparate voices and sounds of hammering are all merged and transformed
into the “concord” of “separate cries with a kind of demure murmur for
background.” Nabokov even uses “two,” the time H.H. arrives at the Schillers’,
to link the Coalmont passage and the epiphany passage. Humbert, just before
he leaves the road in the final chapter, sees “two cars,” bounces “two or three”
times, and offers us the “Hegelian synthesis linking up two dead women.”
Another pointer to artful revision in Chapter 28 is Humbert’s attempt to com-
pensate for his inability to banish the image of Trapp/Schiller in “the executed
sweater.” He resolves to make himself “especially handsome and smart” the
next morning, dressing “with the stern romantic care of a gentleman about to
fight a duel” and covertly alluding to Ray’s editing project and its patron:
I checked the arrangement of my papers, bathed and perfumed my deli-
cate body, shaved my face and chest, selected a silk shirt and clean
drawers, pulled on transparent taupe socks, and congratulated myself for
having with me in my trunk some very exquisite clothes—a waistcoat
with nacreous buttons, for instance, a pale cashmere tie and so on. (268)
This conspicuous metamorphosis functions as a metaphor for the transfor-
mation of the squalid details of Chapter 28 into the magical vision on the
mountainside in the final chapter.
Nabokov further undercuts the elevated thoughts and lofty style of Hum-
bert’s “last mirage of wonder and hopelessness” with the ambiguity of the
novel’s concluding four paragraphs where, not surprisingly, Ray’s subliminally
staked claim persists in Humbert’s final words. In reflections echoing Hum-
bert’s feeling “curiously aloof from my own self” (33) on his polar expedition,
H.H. concludes: “This then is my story. I have reread it. It has bits of marrow
sticking to it, and blood, and beautiful bright-green flies. At this or that twist
of it I feel my slippery self eluding me, gliding into deeper and darker waters
than I care to probe” (308). Nabokov then follows Humbert’s psychological
bewilderment with “inept secretary” Ray’s uncorrected solecism—the mention
of the “fifty-six days” during which Humbert has written his memoir. As if to
emphasize the problematic nature of Humbert’s “redemption,” Nabokov tells
194
Forum
us H.H. plans to “use parts of this memoir in hermetic sessions.” Does H.H.
have in mind closed court sessions or onanistic reveries in his cell? Humbert
continues with another intriguing observation: “For reasons that may appear
more obvious than they really are, I am opposed to capital punishment; this
attitude will be, I trust, shared by the sentencing judge.” If “the sentencing
judge” is Nabokov (the ultimate judge of the text’s “sentences”), Humbert is
spared “capital punishment” in one sense by dying before his trial can start; on
the other hand, since “capital” also alludes to the location of Clarence Clark’s
District of Columbia bar and Ray’s town, “Gray Star,” the powers opposed to
Humbert inflict ongoing punishment culminating in his “coronary throm-
bosis.” Nabokov gives yet another twist to the dramatic irony: “Had I come
before myself, I would have given Humbert at least thirty-five years for rape,
and dismissed the rest of the charges.” Since Ray’s Foreword precedes Hum-
bert’s adulterated memoir, Ray’s voice “comes before” Humbert’s, which is (at
least in part) Ray’s. Meanwhile, Humbert’s “foul mouth” doesn’t permit him
to finish the book without another crude pun: “Be true to your Dick.” In the
novel’s final sentences, Nabokov’s audible undertone blends with Humbert’s
fading voice in an envoy subliminally signed by Ray:
99
And do not pity C.Q. One had to choose between him and H.H., and one
wanted H.H. to exist at least a couple of months longer, so as to have him
make you live in the minds of later generations. I am thinking of aurochs
and angels, the secret of durable pigments, prophetic sonnets, the refuge
of art. And this is the only immortality you and I may share, my Lolita.
(309)
99. “the refuGe of aRt. And ThIS is the only immoRtAlitY you and I may
share, my Lolita.” When Appel asked Nabokov whether one was “supposed to
‘hear’ a different voice” in the novel’s final sentences, the author responded:
“No, I did not mean to introduce a different voice. I did want, however, to
convey a constriction of the narrator’s sick heart, a warning spasm causing
him to abridge names and hasten to conclude his tale before it was too late. I
am glad I managed to achieve this remoteness of tone at the end” (452). I
think this is technically accurate but a little cagey. There was no need to “intro-
duce” a different voice; the voices of John Ray and Nabokov himself get plenty
of exercise throughout the novel. And again Nabokov’s screenplay offers an
intriguing parallel: on its penultimate page “A NARRATIONAL VOICE (Dr.
Ray’s)” breaks in to announce Lolita’s death “in Gray Star” and to herald
Humbert’s final words (212–13).
Who’s Who in the Sublimelight
195
VI
The evidence presented in this paper suggests that however fallible Nabokov
may have been, the meticulous attention he pays to detail and the pointers
he offers yield handsome rewards to readers who tread carefully while follow-
ing his guidance, bearing him out as a rather more generous, if demanding,
antagonist in the struggle with the reader than is sometimes supposed. Nabo-
kov’s subliminal clues, once noticed, make possible an additional spine-thrill
for the re-reader whose eye travels over such resonant phrases as “all this
amended perhaps,” “I wrote it really twice,” “I am ready to make unusual
amends,” “I propose to borrow […] to borrow and to borrow and to borrow,”
and “the whole arrangement was a masterpiece.” Also on the lighter side,
certain puzzling, seemingly gratuitous details turn out to be “closely inter-
wound with the inmost fiber of the book”: we learn the “real purpose” of
Humbert’s expedition to “polar regions,” the identity of the “small hairy
hermaphrodite,” and why “the chair is painted yellow.”
How does the recognition of Nabokov’s subliminal plot affect the reading of
Lolita and the assessment of Nabokov’s achievement in a larger sense? The
widespread evidence of John Ray’s covert influence over Humbert’s story
sheds considerable light on issues raised by the contending views of Dolinin,
Connolly, and Boyd at the beginning of this essay. The chronological incon-
sistency of the “three lost days” need not be seen as leading inevitably to the
supposition that the book’s final scenes are mere products of Humbert’s fancy,
nor is it necessary to attribute the problem to an error on the part of Nabokov.
Given Ray’s active involvement in the text, it is hardly a leap to suppose
that Nabokov deliberately created the discrepancy in the dates and other
“solecisms” to attract the careful reader’s attention and provoke investigation.
If the lost days of Humbert’s confused calendar have been misplaced by fate’s
“inept secretary,” so too might Ray’s manipulations easily account for other
temporal anomalies such as the anachronistic aspects of Quilty’s play and the
“logically impossible” references of the “paper chase.” As to why H.H.’s vanity
should be so frequently sacrificed, Ray’s alliance with Clark/Quilty readily
accounts for the depiction of Humbert as bumbling, obtuse, and insignificant,
especially in the final scenes of the book.
Further, Ray’s subliminal signature mimics Nabokov’s device of implanting
the anagram “Vivian Darkbloom” as a clue to the authorship of the book he
once contemplated publishing anonymously. Ray’s covert claims dotting the
text thus effectively call into question any view of Humbert as an artist in
his own right.
100
And herein lies the most significant effect of my subliminal
100. Seeing Humbert as “assuming the role of an authentic writer” and
196
Forum
reading. The unmasking of John Ray as an agent of McFate allows the reader
to see Humbert’s confession as a travesty of truth and fatally undermines
the supposed morality and sincerity of his conversion. Far from rendering
the book pointless, such a reading allows the enchanted reader to savor the
comedy and pathos of scenes “rich in independent life” (“Homais” 81) while
at the same time marveling at Nabokov’s sublimely artistic deceit. By having
Ray provide Humbert’s “local palliative of articulate art” and “moral apo-
theosis,” Nabokov firmly establishes the distance between himself and his
creature that affords “aesthetic bliss” to author and reader alike.
Maintaining as he did that in great fiction the principal contest is “between
the author and the reader” (SO 183), Nabokov sets our assessment of Hum-
bert’s character as a crucial test of our success in the game. Repeatedly refer-
ring to his readers as members of the jury, Humbert invites judgment in
powerfully affecting language, a heady mix of wit, humor, sharp social ob-
servation, and brilliant parody. Indeed it is partly delight in the magnificent
language of Lolita and the tendency to credit Humbert with that language that
complicate the reader’s sympathies. The major campaign to seduce us that
Humbert launches in the latter half of the novel, his impassioned avowals of
love (“I insist the world know how much I loved my Lolita”), his expressions
of remorse (“oh my poor, bruised child”), and his epiphany near the end of
the book are part and parcel of Ray’s contrivance. The dramatic irony that so
frequently marks the gap between Humbert’s awareness and that of the close
reader underscores the importance of avoiding the trap of identifying with the
“hero.”
101
Since Ray has added his string to Humbert’s bow, the whole issue of
Humbert’s “sincerity” is moot. Thus the text bears out Nabokov’s blunt and
unequivocal judgment: “Humbert Humbert is a vain and cruel wretch who
manages to appear ‘touching.’ That epithet, in its true, tear-iridized sense, can
only apply to my poor little girl” (SO 94).
Works Cited
Alexandrov, Vladimir E. Nabokov’s Otherworld. Princeton: Princeton UP,
1991.
Boyd, Brian. “‘Even Homais Nods’: Nabokov’s Fallibility, Or, How to Revise
Lolita.” Nabokov Studies 2 (1995): 62–86.
assigning him “the status of a fully conscious ‘author,’” Tammi, for example,
concludes that, as Nabokov said of Don Quixote, H.H. is transformed from
“‘parody’ into ‘paragon’” (283–84; 286).
101. A fault Nabokov identifies with less than good readers (LL 3).
Who’s Who in the Sublimelight
197
———. Vladimir Nabokov: The American Years. Princeton: Princeton UP,
1991.
Bruss, Elizabeth. Autobiographical Acts: The Changing Situation of a Literary
Genre. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1976.
Bullock, Richard H. “Humbert the Character, Humbert the Writer.” In Lolita,
ed. Harold Bloom. New York: Chelsea House, 1993 (“Major Literary
Characters”). 90–104.
Connolly, Julian W. “‘Nature’s Reality’ or Humbert’s ‘Fancy’: Scenes of
Reunion and Murder in Lolita.” Nabokov Studies 2 (1995): 41–61.
Cornwell, Neil. Vladimir Nabokov. Northcote House: Plymouth, U.K., 1999.
Dolinin, Alexander. “Lolita in Russian.” In The Garland Companion to
Vladimir Nabokov, ed. Vladimir E. Alexandrov. New York: Garland, 1995.
321–30.
———. “Nabokov’s Time Doubling: From The Gift to Lolita.” Nabokov
Studies 2 (1995): 3–40.
Green, Martin. “Tolstoy and Nabokov: The Morality of Lolita.” In Vladimir
Nabokov’s Lolita, ed. Harold Bloom. New York: Chelsea House, 1987.
13–33.
Hyman, Eric. “Lolita’s John Ray, JR.” English Language Notes 28 (September,
1990): 59–61.
Karlinsky, Simon, ed. Dear Bunny, Dear Volodya: The Nabokov-Wilson Letters,
1940–1971. Berkeley: U of California P, 2001.
McDonald, James L. “John Ray Jr., Critic and Artist: The Foreword to Lolita.”
Studies in the Novel 5 (1973): 352–57.
Nabokov, Vladimir. The Annotated Lolita. Ed. Alfred Appel, Jr. New York:
Random House, 1991.
———. Lectures on Literature. Ed. Fredson Bowers. New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, 1980.
———. Lolita: A Screenplay. New York: McGraw Hill, 1974.
———. Strong Opinions. New York: Vintage, 1990.
NABOKV-L Archives. “Hairy Hermaphrodite.” Online postings. Nov. 1999.
Vladimir Nabokov Forum. 12 Dec. 2002. <http://listserv.ucsb.edu/lsv-cgi-
bin/wa?A1=ind9911&L=nabokv-l >
Proffer, Carl R. Keys to Lolita. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1968.
198
Forum
Salazkina, Maria. “Query re LO: Shadowgraphs & Rengenovskie snimki.”
Online posting. 13 Feb. 1997. Vladimir Nabokov Forum. 16 Nov. 2002.
<http://listserv.ucsb.edu/lsv-cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9702&L=nabokv-
l&F=&S=&P=7447>
Schiff, Stacy. Vera (Mrs. Vladimir Nabokov). New York: Random House, 1999.
Tammi, Pekka. Problems of Nabokov’s Poetics: A Narratological Analysis.
Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1985.
Wood, Michael. The Magician’s Doubts: Nabokov and the Risks of Fiction.
London: Chatto & Windus, 1994.